inthe00s
The Pop Culture Information Society...

These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.

Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.

This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.




Check for new replies or respond here...

Subject: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 10/27/15 at 6:00 pm

Please note that this is my opinion: But personally going by historical events, birth rates, cultural differences, etc. This is how I personally view the generations, but if you have a different opinion please feel free to let me know. Let me know if you think this is accurate but to make matters simple I'll use HS Grad classes as guidelines since thats the year you turn 18 and com of age:


HS Class of 1928 - HS Class of 1945: The GI Generation - Born/Grew up during prosperity in the 10's & 20's. They were the first to grow up with automobiles and home appliances. They came of age during a time of crisis in the Great Depression & WWII and were awarded for their heroic efforts. They were also around during the start of Jazz & the Blues and the first major sound movies (think WWII Veterans).

They are about age 88-105 as of today give or take.


HS Class of 1946 - HS Class of 1963: The Silent Generation - Born/Grew up during crisis in the Great Depression & WWII. They were the first to grow up with technology like the radio. They came of age during a time of economic prosperity in the 40's, 50's, & early 60's. They were the inventors of Rock & Roll, were some of the first modern day teenagers, & were the civil rights leaders of the 50's & 60's (think of the characters from the movie Grease along with Elvis Presley, Martin Luther King Jr, Bernie Sanders, Bruce Lee, & Chuck Norris).

They are about age 70-87 as of today give or take.


HS Class of 1964 - HS Class of 1982: The Baby Boom Generation - Born/Grew up post WWII during a time of economic prosperity in the 50's & 60's. They were coddled as kids and were the first to grow up with Saturday Morning cartoons and kid orientated programming like the Mickey Mouse Club & The Flintstones. They were the first to grow up with technology like the Television & Record Players in their homes. They came of age during a time of political turbulence & growing distrust of government, corporations, and the military industrial complex in the 60's & 70's. They were known for 'Sex, Drugs, & Rock n Roll', civil rights & anti war protests, hippies, 'sharing the world with a coke', Motown, Punk, & Disco and they were the pioneers for much of the music in the 80's like New Wave and Metal, the Yuppies of the 1980's, and are now huge political figures (think of Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, Madonna, Hulk Hogan, John Travolta, Tom Hanks, Sylvester Stallone & Billy Joel).

They are about age 51-69 as of today give or take.


HS Class of 1983 - HS Class of 1999: Generation X - Born/Grew up during an era of a stagnated economy in the 70's & early 80's and during the Conservative revolution during the 70's, 80's & early 90's. Many were raised under divorced households and were considered some of the first true 'latchkey kids' and many felt undesired because of this along with other factors. They grew up during a dark age for children's entertainment, most notably Disney which didn't bounce back to success until the very late 80's! This along with 'Child Demon Movies' and rising divorce rates made Gen Xers feel 'lost' at a very young age. Think of the Brat Pack, they were children during the turbulent times of the 70's and the teens of the revolutionary 80's, they all echo the essence of Gen X. They were also the first to grow up with personal computers, video game consoles, cable television, color television, microwaves, Vinly records and Cassetes, & VCRS. They came of age during the mid-late 80's & 90's during the end of the Cold War, during a time of economic prosperity and when technology like CDs, video game consoles like the Sega Genesis and Playstation & the internet was being released to the public. However because of their depressing experiences as kids and teens, they remained cynical for much of their young adulthood and adulthood, which was fueled (in a good way) during their era of music like Metal, Glam Metal, Gangsta Rap, Grunge, & Post Grunge which was made possible with the revolution that was MTV; along with tv shows like Beverly Hills 90210, Saved By the Bell, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, In Living Color, Beavis and Butthead, FRIENDS, & Boy Meets World to name a few (think of the friends from FRIENDS or celebrities like Kurt Cobain, Tupac Shakur, Biggy Smalls, Ice Cube, Tony Hawk, Jennifer Lopez, Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jay Z, Jennifer Aniston, Eminem, Mariah Carey, Angelina Jolie, Alicia Silverstone, John Cena, James Rolfe, Ben Stiller, Channing Tatum, Kobe Bryant & Kenan and Kel).

They are about age 34-50 as of today give or take.


HS Class of 2000 - HS Class of 2016: The Millennial Generation - Born/Grew up during an era of economic prosperity and during the Liberal revolution during the late 80's-1990's-early 00's & rise of political correctness during the 90's & 00's. Despite this Millennials grew up during a golden age of children orientated programming in the 90's & early 00's thanks to shows like TMNT, The Ren & Stimpy Show, Rugrats, Batman TAS, X-MEN TAS, Ducktales, Tiny Toon Adventures, Power Rangers, Magic School Bus, Arthur, ZOOM, Recess, The Powerpuff Girls, Pee Wee's Playhouse, Blues Clues, Dragon Ball Z, Pokemon, Spongebob, Dexter's Lab, The Fairly Odd Parents, Ed, Edd, n Eddy & Pinky and the Brain to name a few along with kid orientated blocks like SNICK, Fox Kids, Kids WB, ABC One Saturday Morning, Toonami, & Cartoon Cartoon Fridays. They were the first to grow up with the internet, music players, answering machines, Gameboys, pagers, & cell phones. They came of age during the era of terrorism and many post 2007 during the Great Recession and the stagnate recovery in the 2010's. Despite this, Millennials are still very optimistic about the future. However because we were raised as the 'Trophy Generation' many Millennials may come off as entitled and the music of our generation like Bubblegum pop, party rap, pop punk, electropop & dubstep reflects this especially with the help of the internet and social media sites like YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and eventually Twitter and Instagram; they also were defined by tv shows like Glee, Pretty Little Liars, Girls, Scream Queens, The Big Bang Theory, Laguna Beach, 16 & Pregnant, & Jersey Shore to name a few (think of the cast of Glee or the new show Scream Queens or celebrities like the Olsen Twins, Seth Rogen, Lebron James, Raven Symone, Amanda Bynes, Jennifer Lawrence, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Dakota Fanning, Abigail Breslin, Ariana Grande, Zac Efron, & Drake and Josh).

They are about age 17-33 as of today give or take.


The next generation, Z or like to call them the Homeland Generation is too young to be defined at this moment.

They are roughly under 16/17 at the moment



I would also divide the generations into mini cohorts starting with the Baby Boomers like this:


1946-1952: Older Boomers (main Woodstock cohort)

1953-1957: Core Boomers (main Brady Bunch cohort)

1958-1964: Younger Boomers (main Big Chill cohort)

1965-1969: Older Gen Xers (main Brat Packers cohort)

1970-1976: Core Gen Xers (main Heathers cohort)

1977-1981: Younger Gen Xers (main Clueless cohort)

1982-1986: Older Millennials (main American Pie cohort)

1987-1993: Core Millennials (main Mean Girls cohort)

1994-1998/9: Younger Millennials (main Hunger Games cohort)

And so on

Anyways do you guys agree

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: GH1996 on 10/28/15 at 12:58 am

Awesome post!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 10/28/15 at 2:45 am

This is how I'd define the generations:

GI Generation:  HS Class of 1929 to HS Class of 1945
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3079/2541747375_1fabfce597_m.jpg
+ Struggled with the Depression
+ World War II Veterans
+ Parents of the Baby Boomers
+ Socially conservative, anti-Communist political views

Silent Generation:  HS Class of 1946 to HS Class of 1963
http://i.imgur.com/0vh86.jpg
+ Idolized Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, Audrey Hepburn, and James Dean
+ Did not enlist for World War II, but may have fought in the Korean War or Vietnam War
+ First generation to grow up with comic books and animated shorts and films

Baby Boomer Generation:  HS Class of 1964 to HS Class of 1982
https://confessionsofamediapostgrad.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/graduate-bus.png
+ First generation to grow up largely in suburban environments
+ Grew up with Hannah Barbera Cartoons, Howdy Doody, or Mickey Mouse Club
+ Fully embraced Beatlemania
+ Many of these people were hippies in the 60s and early 70s, but now this generation is Fox News' core audience

Generation X:  HS Class of 1983 to HS Class of 1998
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZCLNjcrCiVE/U2mBYQyw8CI/AAAAAAAABgk/jhD4R7xlgYQ/s1600/new+kids+on+the+block.jpg
+ The MTV Generation, initially the proponents of new wave in the 80s, later grunge and gangsta rap in the 90s
+ First generation to grow up with significant educational television like Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, and Schoolhouse Rock, as well as color tv (which made this generation's attachment to MTV possible)
+ First generation to grow up with video games, with more of an emphasis on Atari and arcade cabinets than mascot-driven home consoles
+ Generally a highly casual and fairly rebellious generation, but still not as conservative now as current Boomers.

Millennials:  HS Class of 1999 to HS Class of 2015
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/7f/56/1333211111_hipsters2.jpg?itok=01VBXt3I
+ Can also be described as the "living room generation," since this generation was surrounded by a plethora of home toy products from a young age, as well as television shows that were much more risqué than anything in the past (i.e., Ren & Stimpy, Family Guy, South Park, etc.).
+ Grew up with home consoles like the NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, Nintendo 64, and GameCube.
+ First generation to really grow up with the Internet, particularly when the Internet was primarily accessed via computer and Internet Explorer still existed.
+ First generation to broadly support LGBT rights, as well as the first to push the current waves of feminism and black civil rights activism.

Generation Z:  HS Class of 2016 to HS Class of 2031?
http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/8e79119/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F2f%2F1c%2Fdf897d544e66a7853a3cbb1a75a1%2F150910-teens-editorial.jpg
+ This generation grew up with things like YouTube shows, iPhone/Android games, social media, and Netflix from a very young age and is thus much more accustomed to processing enormous amounts of information
+ Likely to emerge as the computer software generation, due to the job market's increasing reliance on computer and electronics engineers
+ Support for LGBT rights is comfortably accepted across the board, unlike the historically more divided millennial generation
+ I set the end-point to the class of 2031 because I figure that people born in 2013 and beyond will not have experienced the social and ethical turbulence that has defined our currently progressive era

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 10/28/15 at 8:55 am


This is how I'd define the generations:

GI Generation:  HS Class of 1929 to HS Class of 1945
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3079/2541747375_1fabfce597_m.jpg
+ Struggled with the Depression
+ World War II Veterans
+ Parents of the Baby Boomers
+ Socially conservative, anti-Communist political views

Silent Generation:  HS Class of 1946 to HS Class of 1963
http://i.imgur.com/0vh86.jpg
+ Idolized Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, Audrey Hepburn, and James Dean
+ Did not enlist for World War II, but may have fought in the Korean War or Vietnam War
+ First generation to grow up with comic books and animated shorts and films

Baby Boomer Generation:  HS Class of 1964 to HS Class of 1982
https://confessionsofamediapostgrad.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/graduate-bus.png
+ First generation to grow up largely in suburban environments
+ Grew up with Hannah Barbera Cartoons, Howdy Doody, or Mickey Mouse Club
+ Fully embraced Beatlemania
+ Many of these people were hippies in the 60s and early 70s, but now this generation is Fox News' core audience

Generation X:  HS Class of 1983 to HS Class of 1998
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZCLNjcrCiVE/U2mBYQyw8CI/AAAAAAAABgk/jhD4R7xlgYQ/s1600/new+kids+on+the+block.jpg
+ The MTV Generation, initially the proponents of new wave in the 80s, later grunge and gangsta rap in the 90s
+ First generation to grow up with significant educational television like Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, and Schoolhouse Rock, as well as color tv (which made this generation's attachment to MTV possible)
+ First generation to grow up with video games, with more of an emphasis on Atari and arcade cabinets than mascot-driven home consoles
+ Generally a highly casual and fairly rebellious generation, but still not as conservative now as current Boomers.

Millennials:  HS Class of 1999 to HS Class of 2015
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/7f/56/1333211111_hipsters2.jpg?itok=01VBXt3I
+ Can also be described as the "living room generation," since this generation was surrounded by a plethora of home toy products from a young age, as well as television shows that were much more risqué than anything in the past (i.e., Ren & Stimpy, Family Guy, South Park, etc.).
+ Grew up with home consoles like the NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, Nintendo 64, and GameCube.
+ First generation to really grow up with the Internet, particularly when the Internet was primarily accessed via computer and Internet Explorer still existed.
+ First generation to broadly support LGBT rights, as well as the first to push the current waves of feminism and black civil rights activism.

Generation Z:  HS Class of 2016 to HS Class of 2031?
http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/8e79119/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F2f%2F1c%2Fdf897d544e66a7853a3cbb1a75a1%2F150910-teens-editorial.jpg
+ This generation grew up with things like YouTube shows, iPhone/Android games, social media, and Netflix from a very young age and is thus much more accustomed to processing enormous amounts of information
+ Likely to emerge as the computer software generation, due to the job market's increasing reliance on computer and electronics engineers
+ Support for LGBT rights is comfortably accepted across the board, unlike the historically more divided millennial generation
+ I set the end-point to the class of 2031 because I figure that people born in 2013 and beyond will not have experienced the social and ethical turbulence that has defined our currently progressive era


This is 100% spot on, Great job!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 10/28/15 at 12:24 pm


They are roughly under 16/17 at the moment
I would also divide the generations into mini cohorts starting with the Baby Boomers like this:

1953-1957: Core Boomers (main Brady Bunch cohort)

1958-1964: Younger Boomers (main Big Chill cohort)

1965-1969: Older Gen Xers (main Brat Packers cohort)

1970-1976: Core Gen Xers (main Heathers cohort)

1977-1981: Younger Gen Xers (main Clueless cohort)

1982-1986: Older Millennials (main American Pie cohort)

1987-1993: Core Millennials (main Mean Girls cohort)

And so on

Anyways do you guys agree

I would've called the 1970ers-1976ers, the 90210 generation, interesting you chose Heathers. And for us I'd say we're the harry potter and twlight generation!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 10/28/15 at 6:13 pm


I would've called the 1970ers-1976ers, the 90210 generation, interesting you chose Heathers. And for us I'd say we're the harry potter and twlight generation!


Thats true! I chose Heathers because it came out in 89 and core Xers were 13-19 at the time. The Older Xers, born 65-69, were 16-20 when the Breakfast Club came onto the scene and it represented the start of X. Growing up as kids in the 70's, as teens in the 80's and eventually young adults and emerging adults in the 90's

The Heathers cohort or the 90210 cohort would of grew up in the late 70's/early 80's, and spend their youth in the late 80's/early 90's, while coming of age between the years 1988-1994 which widely considered the absolute peak of Gen X Youth Culture and when movies like Heathers and tv shows like 90210 & Fresh Prince were on the air

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 10/29/15 at 6:22 pm

Going by the way #Infinity, the birth years would equate to:

GI Generation: b. 1911-1927 - WWII Veterans/Era of Jazz (Ultimate GI Year 1919)

Silent Generation: b. 1928-1945 - Civil Rights Leaders/Era of Rock n Roll (Ultimate Silent Year 1936)

Baby Boom Generation: b. 1946-1964 - Hippies/Era of Punk & Disco (Ultimate Baby Boomer Year 1955)

Generation X: b. 1965-1980 - Slackers/Era of Grunge & Gangsta Rap (Ultimate Gen X Year 1972)

Millennial Generation: b. 1981-1997 - Hipsters/Era of Electropop & Bubblegum Pop (Ultimate Millennial Year 1989)

Generation Z: b. 1998-2013 - Tweens/Teens/Kids/Era of EDM (Ultimate Gen Z Year 2005)


This seems pretty accurate to me

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: bchris02 on 10/29/15 at 7:59 pm


Going by the way #Infinity, the birth years would equate to:

GI Generation: b. 1911-1927 - WWII Veterans/Era of Jazz (Ultimate GI Year 1919)

Silent Generation: b. 1928-1945 - Civil Rights Leaders/Era of Rock n Roll (Ultimate Silent Year 1936)

Baby Boom Generation: b. 1946-1964 - Hippies/Era of Punk & Disco (Ultimate Baby Boomer Year 1955)

Generation X: b. 1965-1980 - Slackers/Era of Grunge & Gangsta Rap (Ultimate Gen X Year 1972)

Millennial Generation: b. 1981-1997 - Hipsters/Era of Electropop & Bubblegum Pop (Ultimate Millennial Year 1989)

Generation Z: b. 1998-2013 - Tweens/Teens/Kids/Era of EDM (Ultimate Gen Z Year 2005)


This seems pretty accurate to me


Agree with this, though I am not sure Generation Z is not still being born.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Mat1991 on 10/29/15 at 10:31 pm


Eh, personally I think you're overrating the millennials. This is coming from someone born in 1993. I feel like our generation has done some good things like LGBT rights (though this was established in previous decades, I don't see how millennials are special in this regard). Black civil rights were also something that have spanned for generations (still nothing special about the millennials). Not to mention many Millennials fall into the trap of being SJWs, and supporting nutcases like Anita Sarkeesian, and spreading crazy ideas, like the whole "rape culture" and "patriarchy" theories.


Now, there have been some wonderful things to happen like the legalization of gay marriage, and the development of medicine, to name a few things.

However, there has also been some really regressive things that have occurred. In California (where I'm from), our governor, Jerry Brown, has signed an affirmative consent law, called "Yes Means Yes". Now you may think that this is a good thing, that it will help prevent sexual assault. However, if you look it up, you would find that it takes things to an extreme. They claim that the consent must be affirmative, which unfortunately can be arbitrary. Especially since the bill claims that a "lack of protest does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent". Seriously, how stupid is that? The bill specifically calls for "ongoing consent throughout a sexual activity". This is just plain retarded. If a man and a woman agree to have sex, that is all that is needed. You don't need to keep affirming consent throughout the entire act. Here's an image of what our idiot governor is pushing for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUwAKhHDXlU

Now technically consent could be non-verbal, unfortunately, it makes things more arbitrary under the law. How exactly is person supposed to know what constitutes for consent, if a "lack of protest does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent"? I honestly think this is going to cause a lot more problems, because people will be paranoid that their partner could turn on them, claiming that they "didn't affirm consent" at stage x (could be pretty much any point). They also claim that consent, when intoxicated is not real consent. So basically, if both a man and a woman have a couple of drinks, and have sex, a woman could go back and say "well, I didn't mean to say yes, because I had a few drinks". Oh yeah, not to mention, the bill threatens the idea of student due process. So it's basically a "guilty until proven innocent", scenario. Here's some videos for more clarity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Zp-5lTgZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjEl05_BhYg

Anyway, sorry for the long post, I just feel that it's important to keep in mind that society today is not entirely more "progressive". You should check out the channels Sargon of Akkad and TL;DR on Youtube. They can give you a full idea of the issues of today's society, especially with pseudo-progressivisim. This bill is only a small portion of the issues. So that's why I don't feel we truly live in a more "progressive" world.


I'm not a lawyer, and I have only a vague understanding of the law (I don't live in California), but it's not really that hard to affirm that you have somebody's consent during sex. You can look at things like their body language (are they receptive to what you're doing or about to do), or you can ask questions during sex (e.g. "Is it okay if I...?", "Do you like that?"), which people do all the time, anyway.

But, back on topic.  ::)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 10/29/15 at 11:41 pm

I don't want to start a thread, but is 1988/1989 the peak of the millennial generations?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 10/30/15 at 3:05 pm


I don't want to start a thread, but is 1988/1989 the peak of the millennial generations?


Probably.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 10/30/15 at 10:18 pm


I don't want to start a thread, but is 1988/1989 the peak of the millennial generations?


Probably.  People born that year may have owned some Ninja Turtles toys and played the Sega Genesis at a young age, but they would've been ripe to embrace all of the dominant trends of the late 90s and 2000s as they grew older, as well.  They also would've probably been familiar with all of the classic Nicktoons and Cartoon Cartoons from 1991 to 2004, whereas shows like Ren & Stimpy and Rocko's Modern Life weren't even on the air anymore by the time I started watching cartoons.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 10/30/15 at 10:38 pm


Probably.  People born that year may have owned some Ninja Turtles toys and played the Sega Genesis at a young age, but they would've been ripe to embrace all of the dominant trends of the late 90s and 2000s as they grew older, as well.  They also would've probably been familiar with all of the classic Nicktoons and Cartoon Cartoons from 1991 to 2004, whereas shows like Ren & Stimpy and Rocko's Modern Life weren't even on the air anymore by the time I started watching cartoons.


I remember there were still reruns of Ren and Stimpy and Rocko's Modern Life in 1997/1998.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 10/30/15 at 10:49 pm


I remember there were still reruns of Ren and Stimpy and Rocko's Modern Life in 1997/1998.


They weren't on anymore though by the beginning of the new millennium, by which people my age should have been at the height of their interest in Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.  Prior to that, I still watched Arthur on PBS, as well Pokémon on Kids WB, and played video games during my free time.  Even if you already were watching Nickelodeon by 1997/1998, it probably wouldn't have been a huge part of your childhood as it was for those who were in their core childhoods during the early and mid-90s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 10/30/15 at 11:26 pm


They weren't on anymore though by the beginning of the new millennium, by which people my age should have been at the height of their interest in Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.  Prior to that, I still watched Arthur on PBS, as well Pokémon on Kids WB, and played video games during my free time.  Even if you already were watching Nickelodeon by 1997/1998, it probably wouldn't have been a huge part of your childhood as it was for those who were in their core childhoods during the early and mid-90s.


Ren & Stimpy lasted from 1991-1996. People born from 1980-1981 were in 5th grade throughout the 1st season and people born from 1989-1990 were in Kindergarten when most of the final season aired. So that's a 10 year period right there. I'm not sure how long the reruns lasted though. IMO, in order for a show to qualify as apart of your childhood, at least one season of the show has to premiere new episodes in one of your grade school elementary school years. Like for me, Rugrats may have started in 1991, but it still had new episodes throughout the early 2000's as late as 2nd grade for me, including reruns of older episodes being played regularly along the side, so I still consider Rugrats as a huge part of my core childhood despite most of its peak being spent in the 90's.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 10/31/15 at 1:12 am


Ren & Stimpy lasted from 1991-1996. People born from 1980-1981 were in 5th grade throughout the 1st season and people born from 1989-1990 were in Kindergarten when most of the final season aired. So that's a 10 year period right there. I'm not sure how long the reruns lasted though. IMO, in order for a show to qualify as apart of your childhood, at least one season of the show has to premiere new episodes in one of your grade school elementary school years. Like for me, Rugrats may have started in 1991, but it still had new episodes throughout the early 2000's as late as 2nd grade for me, including reruns of older episodes being played regularly along the side, so I still consider Rugrats as a huge part of my core childhood despite most of its peak being spent in the 90's.


Yeah, Rugrats lasted much longer than Ren & Stimpy because the creator was never fired from Nickelodeon, though it did take a break in the mid-90s, a lot like Doug did before it began its less popular Disney era.  The fact that it held on until the end of the Klasky Csupo era in 2004 means it was basically a show for basically all three portions of the millennial generation, unlike the rest of the first wave of Nicktoons, which were early and mid-Y only (though Doug still had reruns in the early 2000s even on Nickelodeon; it was the show that replaced The Angry Beavers' 2:30 slot).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 10/31/15 at 1:38 am


They weren't on anymore though by the beginning of the new millennium, by which people my age should have been at the height of their interest in Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.  Prior to that, I still watched Arthur on PBS, as well Pokémon on Kids WB, and played video games during my free time.  Even if you already were watching Nickelodeon by 1997/1998, it probably wouldn't have been a huge part of your childhood as it was for those who were in their core childhoods during the early and mid-90s.


That's true. Stuff like Pokemon and Arthur were probably more significant in our childhood. Still I feel like Ren and Stimpy and Rocko's Modern Life were a bit of a gateway. Even if I didn't fully appreciate it until I was older. I think the reason I was aware of those shows were because of my older sister. She was born in 1987, so I guess she could be considered a core millennial. She pretty much remembers the entirety of the 90s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 10/31/15 at 1:43 am


That's true. Stuff like Pokemon and Arthur were probably more significant in our childhood. Still I feel like Ren and Stimpy and Rocko's Modern Life were a bit of a gateway. Even if I didn't fully appreciate it until I was older. I think the reason I was aware of those shows were because of my older sister, whom was born in 1987.

Yup, older siblings are the reason I knew of Rocko, and Ren & Stimpy, I remember seeing reruns of them in the early 00s a couple of times even.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 10/31/15 at 1:54 am


Ren & Stimpy lasted from 1991-1996. People born from 1980-1981 were in 5th grade throughout the 1st season and people born from 1989-1990 were in Kindergarten when most of the final season aired. So that's a 10 year period right there. I'm not sure how long the reruns lasted though. IMO, in order for a show to qualify as apart of your childhood, at least one season of the show has to premiere new episodes in one of your grade school elementary school years. Like for me, Rugrats may have started in 1991, but it still had new episodes throughout the early 2000's as late as 2nd grade for me, including reruns of older episodes being played regularly along the side, so I still consider Rugrats as a huge part of my core childhood despite most of its peak being spent in the 90's.


Yeah I think the initial audience (probably born in the 80s) lost interest when Dil was introduced.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 10/31/15 at 1:57 am


Yeah I think the initial audience (probably born in the 80s) lost interest when Dil was introduced.

Ironically, that's when many of my friends and I got into the series! ;D ;D ;D  But, I'd say rugrats was for both 80s and early-mid 90s born.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 10/31/15 at 11:15 am


Ironically, that's when many of my friends and I got into the series! ;D ;D ;D  But, I'd say rugrats was for both 80s and early-mid 90s born.


Yeah, pretty much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 10/31/15 at 3:29 pm


Yeah I think the initial audience (probably born in the 80s) lost interest when Dil was introduced.
This is very true!

I have sisters born in the mid 80's and they say that all the time

While me and my sis born in 91 love both the pre dill and post dill episodes!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 10/31/15 at 3:36 pm

If we go by the widely accepted early 80's-mid 90's definiton of Gen Y and were to break into 3 distinct eras based on what was one of the most quintessential cartoons when certain groups were kids, then it would probably be this (note I am not saying that EVERYBODY is in the same category, but roughly)

1981-1986: Older Y, Main TMNT Cohort aka Neon Era Kids, Y2K Era Teens

1987-1990: Core Y, Main Power Rangers Cohort aka Core 90's Kids, Core 00's Teens

1991-1996: Younger Y, Main Pokemon Cohort aka Y2K Era Kids, Electropop Era Teens

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 10/31/15 at 10:35 pm


Thats true! I chose Heathers because it came out in 89 and core Xers were 13-19 at the time. The Older Xers, born 65-69, were 16-20 when the Breakfast Club came onto the scene and it represented the start of X. Growing up as kids in the 70's, as teens in the 80's and eventually young adults and emerging adults in the 90's

The Heathers cohort or the 90210 cohort would of grew up in the late 70's/early 80's, and spend their youth in the late 80's/early 90's, while coming of age between the years 1988-1994 which widely considered the absolute peak of Gen X Youth Culture and when movies like Heathers and tv shows like 90210 & Fresh Prince were on the air


I have some insight into this because my father was actually born in 1964 (he was just 22 when I was born). Even though his age group is usually lumped in with Gen X, he did start high school in 1979, and generally considers the 70's to be a part of his "time". He liked Disco when he was in junior high, and then Punk when he was in high school (both are considered to be "late Boomer" genres), and he owns a boatload of albums from major 70's rock acts like Boston, Fleetwood Mac, Elton John and Led Zeppelin. In the early 80's he was mostly into New Wave and Hard Rock, but I never really hear him talk much about stuff that came out post-1985, so it seems as if he began to phase out of pop culture a bit at that point.

Because of somebody like him, I've always been intrigued by the idea of the existence of a "Generation Jones", made up of people on the cusp of being Boomers or Xers. These would be people, like my dad, that were too young to remember the upheavals of the 60's, or to be drafted into service in Vietnam, but still old enough to vividly remember Watergate and the malaise of the 70's. As a prime example of a "Jonser", think about somebody like, say, Barack Obama, who was born in 1961.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 10/31/15 at 10:44 pm


I have some insight into this because my father was actually born in 1964 (he was just 22 when I was born). Even though his age group is usually lumped in with Gen X, he did start high school in 1979, and generally considers the 70's to be a part of his "time". He liked Disco when he was in junior high, and then Punk when he was in high school (both are considered to be "late Boomer" genres), and he owns a boatload of albums from major 70's rock acts like Boston, Fleetwood Mac, Elton John and Led Zeppelin. In the early 80's he was mostly into New Wave and Hard Rock, but I never really hear him talk much about stuff that came out post-1985, so it seems as if he began to phase out of pop culture a bit at that point.

Because of somebody like him, I've always been intrigued by the idea of the existence of a "Generation Jones", made up of people on the cusp of being Boomers or Xers. These would be people, like my dad, that were too young to remember the upheavals of the 60's, or to be drafted into service in Vietnam, but still old enough to vividly remember Watergate and the malaise of the 70's. As a prime example of a "Jonser", think about somebody like, say, Barack Obama, who was born in 1961.


Yep, Generation Jonesers I consider to be the late boomers and early Xers. Basically my parents, born in 1959 and 1965.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 10/31/15 at 10:50 pm


I have some insight into this because my father was actually born in 1964 (he was just 22 when I was born). Even though his age group is usually lumped in with Gen X, he did start high school in 1979, and generally considers the 70's to be a part of his "time". He liked Disco when he was in junior high, and then Punk when he was in high school (both are considered to be "late Boomer" genres), and he owns a boatload of albums from major 70's rock acts like Boston, Fleetwood Mac, Elton John and Led Zeppelin. In the early 80's he was mostly into New Wave and Hard Rock, but I never really hear him talk much about stuff that came out post-1985, so it seems as if he began to phase out of pop culture a bit at that point.

Because of somebody like him, I've always been intrigued by the idea of the existence of a "Generation Jones", made up of people on the cusp of being Boomers or Xers. These would be people, like my dad, that were too young to remember the upheavals of the 60's, or to be drafted into service in Vietnam, but still old enough to vividly remember Watergate and the malaise of the 70's. As a prime example of a "Jonser", think about somebody like, say, Barack Obama, who was born in 1961.


Yeah my mother would fall into that category, being born in 57'. She remembers the 60's pretty vividly but she doesn't relate it with her youth, more like her childhood. While the 70's and early 80's was 'her time' and she talks about these two eras the most when reminiscing about her youth. Hence why she doesn't relate to the boomer label, as since I asked her if she related to the boomer label and she always thought of boomers as her husband or her sister (my aunt was born in 52'). I then asked her if she related to Gen X, and she said no to that either. So I do agree, Gen Jones does exist, think of Michael Jackson & Madonna, they are the epitome of Gen Jones

My dad on the other hand was born in 49, and hes the living emodiyment of a baby boomer. Grew up in the conservative 50's, came of age in the radical 60's, served in Vietnam, discoed in the 70's, and yuppied (and married my mom) in the 80's lol

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 10/31/15 at 10:53 pm


Probably.  People born that year may have owned some Ninja Turtles toys and played the Sega Genesis at a young age, but they would've been ripe to embrace all of the dominant trends of the late 90s and 2000s as they grew older, as well.  They also would've probably been familiar with all of the classic Nicktoons and Cartoon Cartoons from 1991 to 2004, whereas shows like Ren & Stimpy and Rocko's Modern Life weren't even on the air anymore by the time I started watching cartoons.


I would include us '87ers in the Gen Y peak also. Generally speaking, kids born 1987-89 are the only cohort both old enough and young enough to have checked all of the key Millennial "boxes". As you mentioned, we were old enough to have gotten into the waning years of the TMNT fad, but young enough to have still collected Pokemon cards in 1999. Old enough to have owned an SNES, Genesis, or even NES, but young enough to have played the PS2 as junior high/high school kids. Old enough to clearly remember a time before the average person had ever heard of the internet, but still young enough to have gotten fully immersed in the MySpace/Facebook/social media fad.

Kids in this group also bridged the gap musically as well. We were old enough to have liked late 90's acts like Sugar Ray, LFO, Smash Mouth, and the Spice Girls, but we were also still in the target age group for more stereotypically Millennial stuff like Nickleback, Jimmy Eat World, Yellowcard, The Strokes, etc.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 10/31/15 at 11:21 pm


Yeah my mother would fall into that category, being born in 57'. She remembers the 60's pretty vividly but she doesn't relate it with her youth, more like her childhood. While the 70's and early 80's was 'her time' and she talks about these two eras the most when reminiscing about her youth. Hence why she doesn't relate to the boomer label, as since I asked her if she related to the boomer label and she always thought of boomers as her husband or her sister (my aunt was born in 52'). I then asked her if she related to Gen X, and she said no to that either. So I do agree, Gen Jones does exist, think of Michael Jackson & Madonna, they are the epitome of Gen Jones

My dad on the other hand was born in 49, and hes the living emodiyment of a baby boomer. Grew up in the conservative 50's, came of age in the radical 60's, served in Vietnam, discoed in the 70's, and yuppied (and married my mom) in the 80's lol


Yeah, 1949 is just about as stereotypical a Boomer birth year as you can get. Their peak childhood years came in the Elvis/James Dean/Malt Shop segment of the 50's, they started high school the year JFK died, turned 18 during the "Summer of Love", were 21 during during the 1970 "Student Strike" that followed the Kent State shootings, and were young adults during the height of Disco excess. I would imagine that a great many 1949ers cast their first vote for George McGovern in his 1972 landslide defeat, then, twelve years later as a much more moderate "yuppie", voted for Ronald Reagan in his 1984 landslide victory.

I would say that your mom, being born in '57, is a more stereotypical example of a "Jonser" than my dad. '64ers and '65ers just barely squeeze into that group, as they are the last birth years to start high school in the '70s, and the last that could have reasonably gotten into Disco before the backlash against it began to set in. People born after 1965 (such as my mom, who's a few years younger than my dad) were more likely to be in their prime music age during the MJ/Madonna/Brat Pack mid '80s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 11/05/15 at 4:33 pm


If we go by the widely accepted early 80's-mid 90's definiton of Gen Y and were to break into 3 distinct eras based on what was one of the most quintessential cartoons when certain groups were kids, then it would probably be this (note I am not saying that EVERYBODY is in the same category, but roughly)

1981-1986: Older Y, Main TMNT Cohort aka Neon Era Kids, Y2K Era Teens

1987-1990: Core Y, Main Power Rangers Cohort aka Core 90's Kids, Core 00's Teens

1991-1996: Younger Y, Main Pokemon Cohort aka Y2K Era Kids, Electropop Era Teens
1991 borns weren't the prime electropop era teens that's insane! We were already in our senior year of high school when that fad began or at least about to become legalized adults and the core of the generation tends to be the longest cohort so this would be more accurate

Early Y 1981-1985

Peak Y 1986-1991

Late Y 1992-1996

People born in 1990 would likely view the Y2k era as a major part of their childhood as well I mean they were only 9 in 1999 and that still one of the best ages childhood has to offer. Also I think the real cohort that enjoyed Pokemon were those born from about 1988/1989-1992 about, I have a cousin born in 89 and I remember he enjoyed early Pokemon at the time back in 1999.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/05/15 at 4:54 pm


1991 borns weren't the prime electropop era teens that's insane! We were already in our senior year of high school when that fad began or at least about to become legalized adults and the core of the generation tends to be the longest cohort so this would be more accurate

Early Y 1981-1985

Peak Y 1986-1991

Late Y 1992-1996

People born in 1990 would likely view the Y2k era as a major part of their childhood as well I mean they were only 9 in 1999 and that still one of the best ages childhood has to offer. Also I think the real cohort that enjoyed Pokemon were those born from about 1988/1989-1992 about, I have a cousin born in 89 and I remember he enjoyed early Pokemon at the time back in 1999.


You make a good point, however on the Pokemon thing I was just going by based on when the trend was most popular which was from  late 1998-2001 and when it was still popular from late 2001-2003 roughly. While the trend at first was mostly with late 80's babies, many of them grew out of it pretty quickly. These are your Gen Wunners, aka the guys that only liked the first season and or when the franchise only had 150 Pokemon. Meanwhile people born from 1992-1996 were all old enough to watch the show during its peak in popularity during 1999-2001 roughly, but were also young enough to continue watching it throughout 2001-2003 even though show was past its peak was still relatively popular at the time. IMO, If you at least grew up during the first 5 seasons (basically with the original trio, Ash, Brock & Misty) and all of the Gameboy Color Games and the first few Advanced Games, then thats what I would consider the true kids of that generation

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/05/15 at 5:05 pm


Also I think the real cohort that enjoyed Pokemon were those born from about 1988/1989-1992 about, I have a cousin born in 89 and I remember he enjoyed early Pokemon at the time back in 1999.


Woah woah woah hold up, are you referring to the Pokemon video games or the Pokemon TV show on Kids WB?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/05/15 at 5:44 pm


Woah woah woah hold up, are you referring to the Pokemon video games or the Pokemon TV show on Kids WB?

Yeah...I hope to god he meant the games because we were old enough for Pokeamania when it was still relevant. Cause if he meant the anime on Kids WB he's kidding himself.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 11/05/15 at 5:48 pm


You make a good point, however on the Pokemon thing I was just going by based on when the trend was most popular which was from  late 1998-2001 and when it was still popular from late 2001-2003 roughly. While the trend at first was mostly with late 80's babies, many of them grew out of it pretty quickly. These are your Gen Wunners, aka the guys that only liked the first season and or when the franchise only had 150 Pokemon. Meanwhile people born from 1992-1996 were all old enough to watch the show during its peak in popularity during 1999-2001 roughly, but were also young enough to continue watching it throughout 2001-2003 even though show was past its peak was still relatively popular at the time. IMO, If you at least grew up during the first 5 seasons (basically with the original trio, Ash, Brock & Misty) and all of the Gameboy Color Games and the first few Advanced Games, then thats what I would consider the true kids of that generation
Oh I see what you mean now. I don't think 91ers really would have still been into Pokemon like that anymore by 2003 being that they turned 12 that year and w were getting into more adolescent oriented activities, although I do remember that my slightly older cousin that I mentioned above was still into Pokemon cards in late 2002. He actually was teaching me how to battle.


Woah woah woah hold up, are you referring to the Pokemon video games or the Pokemon TV show on Kids WB?
The TV show.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/05/15 at 5:57 pm


The TV show.


When Ash, Brock, and Misty were on Pokemon from 1999-2003, which was Indigo League through Master Quest, I think the main cohort would mainly be early & mid 90's babies, not late 80's babies. Someone born in 1989 would almost be in middle school by the time Pokemon reached its peak and would've mostly spent his core childhood with Power Rangers. However, I understand how everybody's experiences were different.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 11/05/15 at 6:07 pm


When Ash, Brock, and Misty were on Pokemon from 1999-2003, which was Indigo League through Master Quest, I think the main cohort would mainly be early & mid 90's babies, not late 80's babies. Someone born in 1989 would almost be in middle school by the time Pokemon reached its peak and would've mostly spent his core childhood with Power Rangers. However, I understand how everybody's experiences were different.
If that is the case those born in 1990 would be the oldest to be into Pokemon during its peak since they were only in 4th grade during the 1999-2000 school although I still think personally that somebody born in late 1989 at least could've gotten into early Pokemon during its peak. I think people born from late 1989- mid 1991 share a lot of the same experiences growing and grow up basically on the same things that's why I consider us part of the same cohort.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/05/15 at 6:14 pm


If that is the case those born in 1990 would be the oldest to be into Pokemon during its peak since they were only in 4th grade during the 1999-2000 school although I still think personally that somebody born in late 1989 at least could've gotten into early Pokemon during its peak. I think people born from late 1989- mid 1991 share a lot of the same experiences growing and grow up basically on the same things that's why I consider us part of the same cohort.


In addition to this, I believe that Class of 2011 (late 1992-mid 1993) would be the ultimate Pokemania kids, because they were in Kindergarten (1998-1999) when the first season of Pokemon premiered on Kids WB, and in 5th grade (2003-2004) during the end of Pokemon's final season with Misty, which was Master Quest. So you could really say 1992 & 1993 born's in general were the ultimate Pokemon kids in its peak of popularity.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 11/05/15 at 8:47 pm

I actually think the significance of Pokémon from about the time of 9/11 through the last Misty season is exaggerated.  By then, Pokémania was pretty much completely dead, with Yu-Gi-Oh! being the major kid's anime fad of the day (along with DBZ).  If anything, the beginning of the Hoenn era was when Pokémon began to rebound, as that was when all of my classmates suddenly began discussing Ruby & Sapphire instead of Yu-Gi-Oh!.  I distinctly remember only making as far as the Umbra & Lumis duel (near the end of 4th grade) before I stopped watching the Yu-Gi-Oh! anime, though it was the ridiculous Noah arc that was the true death knell for Yu-Gi-Oh!'s mainstream popularity.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 11/06/15 at 5:45 am


Yeah...I hope to god he meant the games because we were old enough for Pokeamania when it was still relevant. Cause if he meant the anime on Kids WB he's kidding himself.
Well I'm not saying you were not old enough to remember Pokemania I just think you guys were a little young to be the main demographic for Pokemon during its very early days(1999/2000) unlike those who were in their core childhood at the time. I guess since you turned six in 2001 I guess you could say you were somewhat demographic for some of the peak early Pokemon era.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 11/06/15 at 1:47 pm


Well I'm not saying you were not old enough to remember Pokemania I just think you guys were a little young to be the main demographic for Pokemon during its very early days(1999/2000) unlike those who were in their core childhood at the time. I guess since you turned six in 2001 I guess you could say you were somewhat demographic for some of the peak early Pokemon era.


I disagree with you completely. In a previous post you said people born from 1988/1989-1992. However I was born in October 1993, which would have made me 6 when Pokemon was at its peak. I was at the perfect age to enjoy Pokemon! Not to mention the main demographic for Pokemon was like 4-10.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 11/06/15 at 1:48 pm


In addition to this, I believe that Class of 2011 (late 1992-mid 1993) would be the ultimate Pokemania kids, because they were in Kindergarten (1998-1999) when the first season of Pokemon premiered on Kids WB, and in 5th grade (2003-2004) during the end of Pokemon's final season with Misty, which was Master Quest. So you could really say 1992 & 1993 born's in general were the ultimate Pokemon kids in its peak of popularity.


What about the class of 2012?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/06/15 at 2:05 pm


What about the class of 2012?


I meant the ultimate Pokemon kids, like who was in elementary school throughout the WHOLE peak from 1999-2003. Class of 2012 entered elementary school when season 2 of Pokemon was getting started, and was still in 5th grade by the time the Advanced season was on when Misty was no longer around. Now of course y'all were the prime age for Pokemon's peak too, but I was just referring to the ultimate Pokemon group of kids. So basically in general, Class of 2011 (1992-1993) were in elementary school throughout Pokemon's entire peak from Indigo League to Master Quest. Class of 2006 (1987-1988) were in 5th grade (1998-1999) when Pokemon's peak was just getting started, and Class of 2016 (1997-1998) were in Kindergarten (2003-2004) when Pokemon's peak came to an end. Now remember I'm not talking about the early Pokemon days or the Pokemania era from 1997-2000 or whatever. I understand how Yu-Gi-Oh exploded in 2001, but Pokemon was still pretty big at the time and Misty was still on the show for 2 more years, and I'm pretty sure there were some people who had Pokemon vs. Yu-Gi-Oh debates at the time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/06/15 at 2:11 pm


I disagree with you completely. In a previous post you said people born from 1988/1989-1992. However I was born in October 1993, which would have made me 6 when Pokemon was at its peak. I was at the perfect age to enjoy Pokemon! Not to mention the main demographic for Pokemon was like 4-10.


I agree, I have a cousin who's currently in 1st grade about to turn 7 this month, and he's been into Pokemon since he was 5 1/2 last year, now of course Pokemon is no where near its prime anymore, but there's still merchandise for the next generation series today, he has all kinds of books and cards in his room, and he enjoys the Pokemon XY series on Cartoon Network. I was 6 in 2002 and I have a picture of the first lego toy I ever built, and it was a huge spaceship. I just visually copied from the pictures and put that thing together like a champion! So it's no doubt that people at that age can get into the pop culture geared towards kids easily.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/06/15 at 2:22 pm


Well I'm not saying you were not old enough to remember Pokemania I just think you guys were a little young to be the main demographic for Pokemon during its very early days(1999/2000) unlike those who were in their core childhood at the time. I guess since you turned six in 2001 I guess you could say you were somewhat demographic for some of the peak early Pokemon era.


Heck I was already heavily into Pokemon in 2001. I had Pokemon Red on the Gameboy Color, I watched the show everyday after school and on Saturdays and I would play the card game with my friends and cousins. So I most definitely experienced it during its 'peak'.

However I get where you are coming from. Someone from 1988 or 1989 wouldve been 9/10 years old when Pokemon blew up. I was a similar age when shows like Naruto and Sonic X were popular in the mid 00's. However, I would still say I grew up with Pokemon, especially since I could remember first watching the show in 1999, and watching it regularly from 1999-2003, so when I was 3-7. By the time the main 1st 5 seasons came to a close, I was 7 1/2 (mathematically, the 'peak' of my childhood) going on 8.

I would say how I grew up with the first 5 seasons of Pokemon is similar to how someone from 88' or 89' would've been mostly influences by a show like Power Rangers. They were age 4/5 when the show began and age 7/8 when the main popularity of the original show came to a close.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/06/15 at 2:26 pm


I actually think the significance of Pokémon from about the time of 9/11 through the last Misty season is exaggerated.  By then, Pokémania was pretty much completely dead, with Yu-Gi-Oh! being the major kid's anime fad of the day (along with DBZ). If anything, the beginning of the Hoenn era was when Pokémon began to rebound, as that was when all of my classmates suddenly began discussing Ruby & Sapphire instead of Yu-Gi-Oh!.  I distinctly remember only making as far as the Umbra & Lumis duel (near the end of 4th grade) before I stopped watching the Yu-Gi-Oh! anime, though it was the ridiculous Noah arc that was the true death knell for Yu-Gi-Oh!'s mainstream popularity.


Ok, I understand that the show wasn't the biggest show during the 2001-2002 school year like it was from 1998-mid 2001, but dead? Maybe for guys your age (though your not that much older than me, but I digress) but despite YuGiOh becoming more popular I still remember Pokemon still be generally liked for kids my age. Heck I remember when I was 5-7 years old kids my age on the playground would have debates about which show/card game was better

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 11/06/15 at 2:50 pm


I meant the ultimate Pokemon kids, like who was in elementary school throughout the WHOLE peak from 1999-2003. Class of 2012 entered elementary school when season 2 of Pokemon was getting started, and was still in 5th grade by the time the Advanced season was on when Misty was no longer around. Now of course y'all were the prime age for Pokemon's peak too, but I was just referring to the ultimate Pokemon group of kids. So basically in general, Class of 2011 (1992-1993) were in elementary school throughout Pokemon's entire peak from Indigo League to Master Quest. Class of 2006 (1987-1988) were in 5th grade (1998-1999) when Pokemon's peak was just getting started, and Class of 2016 (1997-1998) were in Kindergarten (2003-2004) when Pokemon's peak came to an end. Now remember I'm not talking about the early Pokemon days or the Pokemania era from 1997-2000 or whatever. I understand how Yu-Gi-Oh exploded in 2001, but Pokemon was still pretty big at the time and Misty was still on the show for 2 more years, and I'm pretty sure there were some people who had Pokemon vs. Yu-Gi-Oh debates at the time.


Oh okay, that makes sense.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 11/06/15 at 3:43 pm


Ok, I understand that the show wasn't the biggest show during the 2001-2002 school year like it was from 1998-mid 2001, but dead? Maybe for guys your age (though your not that much older than me, but I digress) but despite YuGiOh becoming more popular I still remember Pokemon still be generally liked for kids my age. Heck I remember when I was 5-7 years old kids my age on the playground would have debates about which show/card game was better


I just mean Pokémon was definitely no longer a "craze" when Yu-Gi-Oh! became popular the way it was during Generation I and early Generation II.  Pokémon is still extremely popular today, selling millions upon millions with each new game release, but the general public is no longer obsessed with it the way it was in 1999 and 2000.  Even if the anime has gotten consistently worse over the years, I certainly wouldn't consider the 2001-2002 or especially 2002-2003 (pre-Ruby & Sapphire) school years anywhere close to Pokémania, due to Yu-Gi-Oh! overshadowing the franchise during that time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 11/06/15 at 4:00 pm


I just mean Pokémon was definitely no longer a "craze" when Yu-Gi-Oh! became popular the way it was during Generation I and early Generation II.  Pokémon is still extremely popular today, selling millions upon millions with each new game release, but the general public is no longer obsessed with it the way it was in 1999 and 2000.  Even if the anime has gotten consistently worse over the years, I certainly wouldn't consider the 2001-2002 or especially 2002-2003 (pre-Ruby & Sapphire) school years anywhere close to Pokémania, due to Yu-Gi-Oh! overshadowing the franchise during that time.


Agreed. While not as popular as it was 15 years ago, Pokemon is an example of something that has outlived fad status, and has a stable amount of popularity. The same could be said for Power Rangers. It peaked in 1994-1995, declined in 1996-1997 (sort of like how Pokemon declined in 2001-2002). 1998 was when Power Rangers was revitalized, but nowhere near as popular as it was in the mid 90s. In a way I think Power Rangers in Space is almost like what the Hoenn region was to Pokemon, in the sense that each helped revitalize their respective series, and helped them outlive fad status. However, the popularity it once had during the peak years, cannot be duplicated, ever.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/06/15 at 4:20 pm


I just mean Pokémon was definitely no longer a "craze" when Yu-Gi-Oh! became popular the way it was during Generation I and early Generation II.  Pokémon is still extremely popular today, selling millions upon millions with each new game release, but the general public is no longer obsessed with it the way it was in 1999 and 2000.  Even if the anime has gotten consistently worse over the years, I certainly wouldn't consider the 2001-2002 or especially 2002-2003 (pre-Ruby & Sapphire) school years anywhere close to Pokémania, due to Yu-Gi-Oh! overshadowing the franchise during that time.


I understand what you mean. Personally, I'd still consider the peak of the Pokemon TV show to be from 1999-2003 here in the U.S. or according to wikipedia basically series 1 of Pokemon which was Indigo League through Master Quest. However, if you're referring to Pokemania craze, then I'd go with 1998-2001 on that one like you explained. Since late 2003/early 2004 we've been having all these new generations/series of Pokemon like we still do today.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/07/15 at 5:27 pm


I just mean Pokémon was definitely no longer a "craze" when Yu-Gi-Oh! became popular the way it was during Generation I and early Generation II.  Pokémon is still extremely popular today, selling millions upon millions with each new game release, but the general public is no longer obsessed with it the way it was in 1999 and 2000.  Even if the anime has gotten consistently worse over the years, I certainly wouldn't consider the 2001-2002 or especially 2002-2003 (pre-Ruby & Sapphire) school years anywhere close to Pokémania, due to Yu-Gi-Oh! overshadowing the franchise during that time.

Yeah, pre K and kindergarten it was Digimon vs Pokemon, then in 1st and 2nd grade it was yu gi oh vs Pokemon! Lol

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/08/15 at 7:43 pm

Heres another way you could look at generations, since 18 year periods could be seen as long, so instead I opted for 7-15 year time periods:

Baby Boomers: b. 1946-1956 - Children of the 50's & early 60's, The Mickey Mouse Club, JFK, The Beatles, Woodstock, Civil Rights, Motown, Anti War Protests, Hippies, Vietnam, 'Sex Drugs & Rock n Roll'.

Ultimate Baby Boomer b. 1952 ie. Liam Neeson, David Hasselhoff, Jeff Goldblum


Generation Jones: b. 1957-1964 - Children of the 60's & early 70's, Watergate, End of Vietnam, Stagnation, Punks, Disco, The Bee Gees, The Jackson 5, Saturday Night Fever, Grease, Star Wars, Yuppies, New Wave, Pong, Space Invaders, The Brady Bunch.

Ultimate Joneser b. 1961 ie. Barack Obama, George Clooney, Woody Harelson


Generation X: b. 1965-1980 - Reagan Revolution, The Muppets, Sesame Street, GI Joe, Cheers, Hair Metal, Alternative, Gangsta Rap, MTV, Stoners, Slackers, The Brat Pack, Nintendo, FRIENDS, Beverly Hills 90210, Melrose Place, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

Ultimate Xer b. 1972 ie. Eminem, Dwayne Johnson, Cameron Diaz


Millennials: b. 1981-1997 - Dawn of Information Age, Power Rangers, Skip It, YoYos, Pokemon, The WB, Bubblegum Pop, Electropop, YouTube, Facebook, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, iPod, N64, Playstation 2, Mean Girls, Twilight, Super Smash Bros, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The O.C, Pretty Little Liars, Hipsters, SJWs.

Ultimate Millennial b. 1989 ie. Taylor Swift, Chris Brown, Nina Dobrev


Generation Z: b. 1998-2012 - Currently being defined

Ultimate Zer yet to be defined

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 11/08/15 at 11:49 pm


Heres another way you could look at generations, since 18 year periods could be seen as long, so instead I opted for 7-15 year time periods:

Baby Boomers: b. 1946-1956 - Children of the 50's & early 60's, The Mickey Mouse Club, JFK, The Beatles, Woodstock, Civil Rights, Motown, Anti War Protests, Hippies, Vietnam, 'Sex Drugs & Rock n Roll'.

Ultimate Baby Boomer b. 1952 ie. Liam Neeson, David Hasselhoff, Jeff Goldblum


Generation Jones: b. 1957-1964 - Children of the 60's & early 70's, Watergate, End of Vietnam, Stagnation, Punks, Disco, The Bee Gees, The Jackson 5, Saturday Night Fever, Grease, Star Wars, Yuppies, New Wave, Pong, Space Invaders, The Brady Bunch.

Ultimate Joneser b. 1961 ie. Barack Obama, George Clooney, Woody Harelson


Generation X: b. 1965-1980 - Reagan Revolution, The Muppets, Sesame Street, GI Joe, Cheers, Hair Metal, Alternative, Gangsta Rap, MTV, Stoners, Slackers, The Brat Pack, Nintendo, FRIENDS, Beverly Hills 90210, Melrose Place, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

Ultimate Xer b. 1972 ie. Eminem, Dwayne Johnson, Cameron Diaz


Millennials: b. 1981-1997 - Dawn of Information Age, Power Rangers, Skip It, YoYos, Pokemon, The WB, Bubblegum Pop, Electropop, YouTube, Facebook, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, iPod, N64, Playstation 2, Mean Girls, Twilight, Super Smash Bros, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The O.C, Pretty Little Liars, Hipsters, SJWs.

Ultimate Millennial b. 1989 ie. Taylor Swift, Chris Brown, Nina Dobrev


Generation Z: b. 1998-2012 - Currently being defined

Ultimate Zer yet to be defined


Ugh, it sad but true. Our generation is really is defined by hipsters and SJWs (at the moment). I really hope the SJW movement is just a 2010s trend.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek on 11/08/15 at 11:57 pm


Heres another way you could look at generations, since 18 year periods could be seen as long, so instead I opted for 7-15 year time periods:

Baby Boomers: b. 1946-1956 - Children of the 50's & early 60's, The Mickey Mouse Club, JFK, The Beatles, Woodstock, Civil Rights, Motown, Anti War Protests, Hippies, Vietnam, 'Sex Drugs & Rock n Roll'.

Ultimate Baby Boomer b. 1952 ie. Liam Neeson, David Hasselhoff, Jeff Goldblum


Generation Jones: b. 1957-1964 - Children of the 60's & early 70's, Watergate, End of Vietnam, Stagnation, Punks, Disco, The Bee Gees, The Jackson 5, Saturday Night Fever, Grease, Star Wars, Yuppies, New Wave, Pong, Space Invaders, The Brady Bunch.

Ultimate Joneser b. 1961 ie. Barack Obama, George Clooney, Woody Harelson


Generation X: b. 1965-1980 - Reagan Revolution, The Muppets, Sesame Street, GI Joe, Cheers, Hair Metal, Alternative, Gangsta Rap, MTV, Stoners, Slackers, The Brat Pack, Nintendo, FRIENDS, Beverly Hills 90210, Melrose Place, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

Ultimate Xer b. 1972 ie. Eminem, Dwayne Johnson, Cameron Diaz


Millennials: b. 1981-1997 - Dawn of Information Age, Power Rangers, Skip It, YoYos, Pokemon, The WB, Bubblegum Pop, Electropop, YouTube, Facebook, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, iPod, N64, Playstation 2, Mean Girls, Twilight, Super Smash Bros, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The O.C, Pretty Little Liars, Hipsters, SJWs.

Ultimate Millennial b. 1989 ie. Taylor Swift, Chris Brown, Nina Dobrev


Generation Z: b. 1998-2012 - Currently being defined

Ultimate Zer yet to be defined

Question for you, Ocarinafan: whenever someone tells you "You are Gen Z", be it on the news, in college class, or maybe one of your friends, do you say "No, I'm not", "Yes, I am", "I'm in between Y and Z", or do you not care? The vast majority of people say it begins in 1995, as much as older Zers want to disagree with that.

Yes, I know generations are a load of soft-science bullsheesh. However, due to the bad reputations of certain gens, older/younger members often want to distance themselves from them. For example, those born in 1981-84 HATE being called "Millennials", since they didn't have widespread Internet until high/school.

Likewise, those born 1961-64 often prefer to be Gen X, since they didn't participate in Vietnam protests at all and don't remember when JFK was shot. They also want to distance themselves from the corporate shilling, "screwing everyone over", and "f**k yours, I got mine" perceptions of the Boomers.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/09/15 at 12:07 am


Question for you, Ocarinafan: whenever someone tells you "You are Gen Z", be it on the news, in college class, or maybe one of your friends, do you say "No, I'm not", "Yes, I am", "I'm in between Y and Z", or do you not care? The vast majority of people say it begins in 1995, as much as older Zers want to disagree with that.

Yes, I know generations are a load of soft-science bullsheesh. However, due to the bad reputations of certain gens, older/younger members often want to distance themselves from them. For example, those born in 1981-84 HATE being called "Millennials", since they didn't have widespread Internet until high/school.

Likewise, those born 1961-64 often prefer to be Gen X, since they didn't participate in Vietnam protests at all and don't remember when JFK was shot. They also want to distance themselves from the corporate shilling, "screwing everyone over", and "f**k yours, I got mine" perceptions of the Boomers.


Hahaha, Zelek you have a point there! I here in this everyday life too! I'm in a Physics class right now and there are a few early 80's born's in there and they think their are Generation X or at the tail end of the generation and they actually do get offended if they get called Generation Y or millennials, while people born in the early 60's get offended when getting called Baby Boomers because they say it's an insult of calling them "old" and they wanna feel like like the X'ers.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek on 11/09/15 at 12:15 am


Hahaha, Zelek you have a point there! I here in this everyday life too! I'm in a Physics class right now and there are a few early 80's born's in there and they think their are Generation X or at the tail end of the generation and they actually do get offended if they get called Generation Y or millennials, while people born in the early 60's get offended when getting called Baby Boomers because they say it's an insult of calling them "old" and they wanna feel like like the X'ers.

I'm guessing the presentations in your classes say "Gen Z 1995-2010", right? How do those in their late teens/early 20s feel about it? Happy, indifferent, offended?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 11/09/15 at 12:16 am


Question for you, Ocarinafan: whenever someone tells you "You are Gen Z", be it on the news, in college class, or maybe one of your friends, do you say "No, I'm not", "Yes, I am", "I'm in between Y and Z", or do you not care? The vast majority of people say it begins in 1995, as much as older Zers want to disagree with that.

Yes, I know generations are a load of soft-science bullsheesh. However, due to the bad reputations of certain gens, older/younger members often want to distance themselves from them. For example, those born in 1981-84 HATE being called "Millennials", since they didn't have widespread Internet until high/school.

Likewise, those born 1961-64 often prefer to be Gen X, since they didn't participate in Vietnam protests at all and don't remember when JFK was shot. They also want to distance themselves from the corporate shilling, "screwing everyone over", and "f**k yours, I got mine" perceptions of the Boomers.


It's interesting, there's still debate going on as to where the Y/Z line is. I read some forums on this site from 2006, where some people considered 1995 to be the first Z birth year, with the elements of Z starting with those born in 1993. Some other people even considered 1991 to have elements of Z and 1993 to be the first fully Z birth year. And some people even claimed those born in 1992 were Gen Y with elements of X (I'm not kidding). There was a lot of wacky, inconsistent ideas back then. Nowadays it seems there's a general consensus of Gen Z beginning around the 1998 or 1999, though some swear by the mainstream cutoff of 2000. Personally it's hard to say. The idea of grouping people in one category based on an 18-20 year period is pretty crazy. Though I guess each generation has it's peak years. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek on 11/09/15 at 12:17 am


Nowadays it seems there's a general consensus of Gen Z beginning around the 1998 or 1999, though some swear by the mainstream cutoff of 2000.

I've never heard this, it's always 1995-97 on news sites.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 11/09/15 at 12:22 am


Hahaha, Zelek you have a point there! I here in this everyday life too! I'm in a Physics class right now and there are a few early 80's born's in there and they think their are Generation X or at the tail end of the generation and they actually do get offended if they get called Generation Y or millennials, while people born in the early 60's get offended when getting called Baby Boomers because they say it's an insult of calling them "old" and they wanna feel like like the X'ers.


I guess it's subjective. Sometimes I'm ashamed to associate myself as a Millennial. Especially with the current SJW movement. I know not all millennials are SJWs (I'm not one), but it seems to be a defining characteristic, at the moment.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 11/09/15 at 12:24 am


Yeah, pre K and kindergarten it was Digimon vs Pokemon, then in 1st and 2nd grade it was yu gi oh vs Pokemon! Lol


True, but Digimon was always considered to be merely a wannabe-Pokémon, whereas Yu-Gi-Oh! was legitimately much more popular than Pokémon between its premiere in September 2001 (which makes sense, given that Yu-Gi-Oh! was much darker than Pokémon) and the release of Ruby & Sapphire.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek on 11/09/15 at 12:24 am


I guess it's subjective. Sometimes I'm ashamed to associate myself as a Millennial. Especially with the current SJW movement. I know not all millennials are SJWs (I'm not one), but it seems to be a defining characteristic, at the moment.

Some argue that Gen Z is the "social justice generation", but others argue that they're only 15 at most (if you go by the 2000 start due) and most of the hypersensitivity comes from college-aged kids, aka Millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 11/09/15 at 12:26 am


I've never heard this, it's always 1995-97 on news sites.


I've heard that too, but honestly, there are so many different cutoffs thrown around, that it's probably getting arbitrary for many people. Personally I don't really care. I just hope that Gen Z, doesn't keep the SJW movement alive.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 11/09/15 at 12:34 am


I've heard that too, but honestly, there are so many different cutoffs thrown around, that it's probably getting arbitrary for many people. Personally I don't really care. I just hope that Gen Z, doesn't keep the SJW movement alive.


I know. They're annoying as heck. I don't know why, I get a bad vibe from them.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 11/09/15 at 12:43 am


True, but Digimon was always considered to be merely a wannabe-Pokémon, whereas Yu-Gi-Oh! was legitimately much more popular than Pokémon between its premiere in September 2001 (which makes sense, given that Yu-Gi-Oh! was much darker than Pokémon) and the release of Ruby & Sapphire.


To be fair there were a lot of alleged wannabe shows at the time like Medabots, Monster Rancher, and Cardcaptors. And while Digimon didn't quite match the success of Pokemon, it came close. It even had a worldwide theatrical release. Which is still a far-cry from the 3 Pokemon movies that got a worldwide theatrical release, but what can you do  ;D. I think while Digimon had better writing, it did have a hard time keeping up with Pokemon's marketability. Along with the show, Pokemon had the games (which was the meat of its success), the card games, the movies, and the designs of the Pokemon themselves (which admittedly, were more memorable).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek on 11/09/15 at 1:20 am


I've heard that too, but honestly, there are so many different cutoffs thrown around, that it's probably getting arbitrary for many people.

What sources did you find that said 98-99? Could you link them, perhaps?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/09/15 at 1:27 am

We should stop using Y and Z for these generations. X made sense, Y and Z is just stupid. Millennials (1981-1997) makes sense and we should keep that up. Instead of Z, they should be called Generation-i or whatever since that generation is so absorbed in their apple and google products it's not even funny. The kids of this generation were born 1998-onward and that's when the i-Mac was already out.


I know. They're annoying as heck. I don't know why, I get a bad vibe from them.


Me too. You know what's the worst thing about these social justice league heros? Some of them end up being my age! How on earth does that happen!? I've gone out a few times and seen these guys around 32/33 with tight jeans and big beards talking about gay rights, killing white people, "cis scum" and the "patriarchy." I always see these guys in record stores and coffee stores. I don't know if I have any hope for the i-Generation. Even tail end (1993-1997) Millennials had some experience in a less connected world (they're quickly losing that skill! Use it or lose it!). All the i-Generation knows is technology. Hardly any social skills whatsoever. They just trap themselves in safety bubbles on Tumbler instead of challenging themselves in the outside world.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek on 11/09/15 at 1:36 am


We should stop using Y and Z for these generations. X made sense, Y and Z is just stupid. Millennials (1981-1997) makes sense and we should keep that up. Instead of Z, they should be called Generation-i or whatever since that generation is so absorbed in their apple and google products it's not even funny. The kids of this generation were born 1998-onward and that's when the i-Mac was already out.

Me too. You know what's the worst thing about these social justice league heros? Some of them end up being my age! How on earth does that happen!? I've gone out a few times and seen these guys around 32/33 with tight jeans and big beards talking about gay rights, killing white people, "cis scum" and the "patriarchy." I always see these guys in record stores and coffee stores. I don't know if I have any hope for the i-Generation. Even tail end (1993-1997) Millennials had some experience in a less connected world (they're quickly losing that skill! Use it or lose it!). All the i-Generation knows is technology. Hardly any social skills whatsoever. They just trap themselves in safety bubbles on Tumbler instead of challenging themselves in the outside world.

You're entitled to your opinion of thinking homosexuality is wrong but it might get you in trouble on this forum.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/09/15 at 1:40 am


You're entitled to your opinion of thinking homosexuality is wrong but it might get you in trouble on this forum.


Oh, no, I don't think it's wrong at all. I support it but it's the way they go on about it to look good. They don't really believe in the causes they go on about.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek on 11/09/15 at 1:46 am

Ah, I see.

I also am annoyed by SJW types. Ben Stiller says they probably wouldn't be able to make Tropic Thunder (a movie made only 7 years ago) today, due to people getting sensitive. This really puts into perspective how quickly and rapidly social media changed society, both for positive and negative.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/09/15 at 9:13 am


I'm guessing the presentations in your classes say "Gen Z 1995-2010", right? How do those in their late teens/early 20s feel about it? Happy, indifferent, offended?


Actually in my sociology class last semester the professor gave us a brief lecture on generations and she stated that people in my class were Millennials. She went with the traditional 1982-2000 definition

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/09/15 at 9:26 am


Question for you, Ocarinafan: whenever someone tells you "You are Gen Z", be it on the news, in college class, or maybe one of your friends, do you say "No, I'm not", "Yes, I am", "I'm in between Y and Z", or do you not care? The vast majority of people say it begins in 1995, as much as older Zers want to disagree with that.

Yes, I know generations are a load of soft-science bullsheesh. However, due to the bad reputations of certain gens, older/younger members often want to distance themselves from them. For example, those born in 1981-84 HATE being called "Millennials", since they didn't have widespread Internet until high/school.

Likewise, those born 1961-64 often prefer to be Gen X, since they didn't participate in Vietnam protests at all and don't remember when JFK was shot. They also want to distance themselves from the corporate shilling, "screwing everyone over", and "f**k yours, I got mine" perceptions of the Boomers.


Personally I just consider myself YZ, since sources cannot figure a proper cutoff. For instance if you type in 'Millennials' on Google most recent sources and articles will go with the age range of 18-34, implying that Millennials were born from 1981-1997. While if you type in 'Generation Z' most sources and articles will go with the age range of 20 or 19 and under, implying that they were born from 1995-2010 or 1996-2010. So its pretty obvious that I am in a similar position as many late 70's/early 80's babies are when it comes down to being either X or Y. Infact check out these two sections from these wikipedia articles with both Millennials and Z

Millennials:

"Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote about the Millennials in Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069, and they released an entire book devoted to them, titled Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. Strauss and Howe are "widely credited with naming the Millennials" according to journalist Bruce Horovitz. In 1987, they coined the term "around the time 1982-born children were entering preschool and the media were first identifying their prospective link to the millennial year 2000". Strauss and Howe use 1982 as the Millennials' starting birth year and 2004 as the last birth year.

In August 1993, the phrase Generation Y first appeared in an Ad Age editorial to describe those who were aged 11 or younger as well as the teenagers of the upcoming ten years who were defined as different from Generation X. Since then, the company has sometimes used 1982 as the starting birth year. According to Horovitz, in 2012, Ad Age "threw in the towel by conceding that Millennials is a better name than Gen Y", and by 2014, a past director of data strategy at Ad Age said to NPR "the Generation Y label was a placeholder until we found out more about them".

Alternative names for this group that have been proposed in the past are: Generation We, Global Generation, Generation Next and the Net Generation. Millennials are sometimes also called Echo Boomers, referring to the generation's size relative to the Baby Boomer generation and due to the significant increase in birth rates during the 1980s and into the 1990s. In the United States, birth rates peaked in August 1990 and a 20th-century trend toward smaller families in developed countries continued.

Newsweek used the term Generation 9/11 to refer to young people who were between the ages of 10 and 20 years on 11 September 2001. The first reference to "Generation 9/11" was made in the cover story of the November 12, 2001 issue of Newsweek.

In his book The Lucky Few: Between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom, author Elwood Carlson called Millennials the "New Boomers" (born 1983 to 2001), because of the upswing in births after 1983, finishing with the "political and social challenges" that occurred after the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, and the "persistent economic difficulties" of the time. Generally speaking, Millennials are the children of Baby Boomers or Generation Xers, while a few may have parents from the Silent Generation.

In 2006, Australian McCrindle Research Center, used 1982 to 2000 as birth dates in a document titled "Report on the Attitudes and Views of Generations X and Y on Superannuation". Separately, McCrindle has also defined "Generation Y" as those born between 1980 to 1994.

In 2013, a global generational study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers with the University of Southern California and the London Business School defined Millennials as those born between 1980 and 1995.

In May 2013, a Time magazine cover story identified Millennials as those born from 1980 or 1981 to 2000.

In 2014, the Pew Research Center, an American think tank organization, defined "adult Millennials" as those who are 18 to 33 years old, born 1981–1996. And according to them, the youngest Millennials are still "in their teens" with "no chronological end point set for them yet".

In 2015, the Pew Research Center also conducted research regarding generational identity. It was discovered that Millennials, or members of Generation Y, are less likely to strongly identify with the generational term when compared to Generation X or to the baby boomers. It was also found that Millennials chose most often to define itself with more negative terms such as self-absorbed, wasteful or greedy. In this 2015 report, Pew defined Millennials with birth years ranging from 1981 to 1997.

In Canada, the official body of Statistics Canada has declared 1992 as the last year of birth for Generation Y. "

Original Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials


Generation Z:

"Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote several books on the subject of generations and are widely credited with coining the term Millennials. Howe has said "No one knows who will name the next generation after the Millennials". In 2005, their company sponsored an online contest in which respondents voted overwhelmingly for the name Homeland Generation. That was not long after the September 11th terrorist attacks, and one fallout of the disaster was that Americans may have felt more safe staying at home. Howe has described himself as "not totally wed" to the name, and cautioned that "names are being invented by people who have a great press release. Everyone is looking for a hook." Strauss and Howe defined the Homeland Generation as people born from the year 2005 onwards.

In 2012, USA Today sponsored an online contest for readers to choose the name of the next generation after the Millennials. The name Generation Z was suggested, although journalist Bruce Horovitz thought that some might find the term "off-putting". According to Horovitz, the generations begins roughly around 1995.

In 2013, the Nickelodeon channel used the term post-millennials to describe its audience.

iGeneration (or iGen) is a name that several individuals claim to have coined. Psychology professor and author Jean Twenge claims that the name iGen "just popped into her head" while she was driving near Silicon Valley, and that she had intended to use it as the title of her 2006 book Generation Me until it was overridden by her publisher. Demographer Cheryl Russell claims to have first used the term in 2009. In 2014, an NPR news intern noted that iGeneration "seems to be winning" as the name for the post-Millennials. The name has been described as "a wink and nod to Apple's iPod and iPhone", with former Ad Age writer Matt Carmichael noting that the lowercase "i" in iGeneration left room for interpretation, and could also stand for "interactive" or "international".

The Pluralist Generation (also abbreviated as Plurals) is a name coined in 2012 by marketing firm Frank N. Magid Associates, who use 1997 to the present day as birth dates. According to Magid, the name "Plurals" reflects that they are the most diverse of any generation in the United States.

In Australia, a 2005 report from the McCrindle Research Center used 2001 as the starting point of this generation's birth years. A later McCrindle report in 2009 gave a range of 1995-2009, starting with a recorded rise in birth rates, and fitting their newer definition of a generational span as 15 years. Under this definition McCrindle uses birth rates to determine when a new generation emerges rather than or in addition to sociological changes and trends. Statistics Canada defines the generation as starting in 1993."

Original Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z

So in the grand scheme of things me, along with a few others on this forum like Mqg, EazyE-Man, mxcrasher, #infinity, & musicguy93, among others are all on the cusp between Y & Z, though if pressed most of us might be more likely to consider ourselves Late Y rather than Early Z, since we remember all the quintessential Y cultural things like the lack of electronics, Web 1.0 era internet, the golden age of various kid networks, a prosperous economy, kids being treated like Angels, events like Columbine, Y2K, 2000 Election, 9/11, Hurricaine Katrina, and or The Late 2000's Recession

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 11/09/15 at 9:47 am


We should stop using Y and Z for these generations. X made sense, Y and Z is just stupid. Millennials (1981-1997) makes sense and we should keep that up. Instead of Z, they should be called Generation-i or whatever since that generation is so absorbed in their apple and google products it's not even funny. The kids of this generation were born 1998-onward and that's when the i-Mac was already out.

Me too. You know what's the worst thing about these social justice league heros? Some of them end up being my age! How on earth does that happen!? I've gone out a few times and seen these guys around 32/33 with tight jeans and big beards talking about gay rights, killing white people, "cis scum" and the "patriarchy." I always see these guys in record stores and coffee stores. I don't know if I have any hope for the i-Generation. Even tail end (1993-1997) Millennials had some experience in a less connected world (they're quickly losing that skill! Use it or lose it!). All the i-Generation knows is technology. Hardly any social skills whatsoever. They just trap themselves in safety bubbles on Tumbler instead of challenging themselves in the outside world.


I don't support a person saying racist, homophobic, bigoted, things. Of course not. But I do see these social justice types swinging too far in one direction of the pendulum, where they can take everything you say out of context, become really accusatory, etc, etc. Where they believe everything is racist.

Most of these social justice types are Millenials? I'm guessing late Millenials, like born 1991 and after.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/09/15 at 10:48 am


I don't support a person saying racist, homophobic, bigoted, things. Of course not. But I do see these social justice types swinging too far in one direction of the pendulum, where they can take everything you say out of context, become really accusatory, etc, etc. Where they believe everything is racist.

Most of these social justice types are Millenials? I'm guessing late Millenials, like born 1991 and after.


I agree. They spout out these buzzwords and if you simply ask them "Well, you can talk but what do you actually do for these people's rights?" and they'll go off at you and call you a "racist, bigoted sh*thead." True story. And don't you dare question their self-diagnosed illnesses. They'll freak out and tell you how corrupt the medical system is when you say "self-diagnosed? You should see a doctor, dude." And the other day I heard about this "otherkin" thing that they believe in and it's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Thin-skinned idiot radicals who trap themselves in safety internet bubbles.

I'm not kidding. Most of them are 18-22 college kids but a lot of them are 30 year old hipsters.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/09/15 at 11:35 am


I agree. They spout out these buzzwords and if you simply ask them "Well, you can talk but what do you actually do for these people's rights?" and they'll go off at you and call you a "racist, bigoted sh*thead." True story. And don't you dare question their self-diagnosed illnesses. They'll freak out and tell you how corrupt the medical system is when you say "self-diagnosed? You should see a doctor, dude." And the other day I heard about this "otherkin" thing that they believe in and it's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Thin-skinned idiot radicals who trap themselves in safety internet bubbles.

I'm not kidding. Most of them are 18-22 college kids but a lot of them are 30 year old hipsters.


Hence why I consider us Millennials the SJW generation. Most of your famous SJWs like Anita Sarkessian for instance, are Millennials. Yeah you will defitely have tons of Younger Millennials/Older Zers who follow in that ideology, but its the core of Millennials that spew it out. Just look at Buzzfeed, The Young Turks, Black Lives Matter, mostly Millennials. Its not they are on the wrong side of the issues, I would argue that what they stand for is 100% correct on the issues, its just how they go about promoting their message is at times very militant and divisive in nature.

I am for equal rights for all races, genders, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicities, etc. but in our modern western world many young activists promote their message in a very disjointed and misleading way that it makes their entire movement look brash and angsty, which is a big turn off for some people, including myself.

Hence why I don't personally identify with either political ideology, conservative or liberal, I would say I am more of a moderate. It seems that while Millennials are actually the most liberal and open minded generation in recent years when it comes to social issues, we still have a more moderate and at times slightly conservative view on other issues

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/09/15 at 11:48 am




Hence why I consider us Millennials the SJW generation. Most of your famous SJWs like Anita Sarkessian for instance, are Millennials. Yeah you will defitely have tons of Younger Millennials/Older Zers who follow in that ideology, but its the core of Millennials that spew it out. Just look at Buzzfeed, The Young Turks, Black Lives Matter, mostly Millennials. Its not they are on the wrong side of the issues, I would argue that what they stand for is 100% correct on the issues, its just how they go about promoting their message is at times very militant and divisive in nature.

I am for equal rights for all races, genders, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicities, etc. but in our modern western world many young activists promote their message in a very disjointed and misleading way that it makes their entire movement look brash and angsty, which is a big turn off for some people, including myself.

Hence why I don't personally identify with either political ideology, conservative or liberal, I would say I am more of a moderate. It seems that while Millennials are actually the most liberal and open minded generation in recent years when it comes to social issues, we still have a more moderate and at times slightly conservative view on other issues


That's why I do, too. Unfortunately, a lot of people my age are the one's who started the social justice hipster trend.

The whole liberal social issue thing is pretty recent. Like said above, Tropic Thunder was made in 2008 yet if made today, people would freak out over it. I think 2011 was the rise of the social justice trend. It's a very late-Millennial thing as it happened while all the tail-enders are entering adulthood.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/09/15 at 12:07 pm


That's why I do, too. Unfortunately, a lot of people my age are the one's who started the social justice hipster trend.

The whole liberal social issue thing is pretty recent. Like said above, Tropic Thunder was made in 2008 yet if made today, people would freak out over it. I think 2011 was the rise of the social justice trend. It's a very late-Millennial thing as it happened while all the tail-enders are entering adulthood.


So true! Its amazing how different the 2000's are compared to the 2010's. While we've made a lot progress since then, I also think we've made a lot of regress as well. PC culture, while rising since the 1990's, has hit an all time high this decade, and it almost makes the everyday lifestyle of the 1990's & 2000's seem like a golden age in comparison

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/09/15 at 12:26 pm


So true! Its amazing how different the 2000's are compared to the 2010's. While we've made a lot progress since then, I also think we've made a lot of regress as well. PC culture, while rising since the 1990's, has hit an all time high this decade, and it almost makes the everyday lifestyle of the 1990's & 2000's seem like a golden age in comparison


I agree. Everyone's so scared of everything these days. They don't like criticism, being wrong or anyone contradicting their point of view. It's all about them and their feelings no matter how ridiculous their ideas are. Seriously, I got yelled at by some guy in public because I told him it's not a good idea to be self-diagnosing himself and to see a doctor after he was done bragging about having severe ADD and being "so OCD" about keeping his kitchen counter-top clean and he was only 2 year younger than me! You'd except that behavior from a 7 year old child! I don't remember the 1990's and 2000's being this bad at all.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/09/15 at 12:38 pm


I agree. Everyone's so scared of everything these days. They don't like criticism, being wrong or anyone contradicting their point of view. It's all about them and their feelings no matter how ridiculous their ideas are. Seriously, I got yelled at by some guy in public because I told him it's not a good idea to be self-diagnosing himself and to see a doctor after he was done bragging about having severe ADD and being "so OCD" about keeping his kitchen counter-top clean and he was only 2 year younger than me! You'd except that behavior from a 7 year old child! I don't remember the 1990's and 2000's being this bad at all.


That sucks. You'd expect him to act more mature for his age...

You should check out this video on this topic:

zH0mPfR-K2U

Basically he explains the difference between Classical Liberalism and Modern Day Liberalism (Progressivism)

Its so accurate its scary

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 11/09/15 at 3:01 pm

Ultimate Xer b. 1972 ie. Eminem, Dwayne Johnson, Cameron Diaz

Am I this? ↑ ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/09/15 at 3:17 pm


Am I this? ↑ ???


Well you said you were born in 74' if I'm not mistaken. So yeah, your around that age

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 11/10/15 at 1:28 pm


I don't support a person saying racist, homophobic, bigoted, things. Of course not. But I do see these social justice types swinging too far in one direction of the pendulum, where they can take everything you say out of context, become really accusatory, etc, etc. Where they believe everything is racist.

Most of these social justice types are Millenials? I'm guessing late Millenials, like born 1991 and after.
Late Y are those born in 1993-1996 in my opinion, 1991 borns are still Core Y

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 11/10/15 at 1:32 pm


I don't support a person saying racist, homophobic, bigoted, things. Of course not. But I do see these social justice types swinging too far in one direction of the pendulum, where they can take everything you say out of context, become really accusatory, etc, etc. Where they believe everything is racist.

Most of these social justice types are Millenials? I'm guessing late Millenials, like born 1991 and after.
Let me ask you this out of curiosity. Why exactly do you consider 1991 borns to be part of late Y?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/10/15 at 2:47 pm


That sucks. You'd expect him to act more mature for his age...

You should check out this video on this topic:

zH0mPfR-K2U

Basically he explains the difference between Classical Liberalism and Modern Day Liberalism (Progressivism)

Its so accurate its scary


Even me, the guy who makes fart and Nu Metal jokes at 33, wouldn't yell at some dude in public for not agreeing with me.

Thanks for the video! I'll be sure to check it out when I got some time!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 11/11/15 at 2:32 am


Personally I just consider myself YZ, since sources cannot figure a proper cutoff. For instance if you type in 'Millennials' on Google most recent sources and articles will go with the age range of 18-34, implying that Millennials were born from 1981-1997. While if you type in 'Generation Z' most sources and articles will go with the age range of 20 or 19 and under, implying that they were born from 1995-2010 or 1996-2010. So its pretty obvious that I am in a similar position as many late 70's/early 80's babies are when it comes down to being either X or Y. Infact check out these two sections from these wikipedia articles with both Millennials and Z

Millennials:

"Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote about the Millennials in Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069, and they released an entire book devoted to them, titled Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. Strauss and Howe are "widely credited with naming the Millennials" according to journalist Bruce Horovitz. In 1987, they coined the term "around the time 1982-born children were entering preschool and the media were first identifying their prospective link to the millennial year 2000". Strauss and Howe use 1982 as the Millennials' starting birth year and 2004 as the last birth year.

In August 1993, the phrase Generation Y first appeared in an Ad Age editorial to describe those who were aged 11 or younger as well as the teenagers of the upcoming ten years who were defined as different from Generation X. Since then, the company has sometimes used 1982 as the starting birth year. According to Horovitz, in 2012, Ad Age "threw in the towel by conceding that Millennials is a better name than Gen Y", and by 2014, a past director of data strategy at Ad Age said to NPR "the Generation Y label was a placeholder until we found out more about them".

Alternative names for this group that have been proposed in the past are: Generation We, Global Generation, Generation Next and the Net Generation. Millennials are sometimes also called Echo Boomers, referring to the generation's size relative to the Baby Boomer generation and due to the significant increase in birth rates during the 1980s and into the 1990s. In the United States, birth rates peaked in August 1990 and a 20th-century trend toward smaller families in developed countries continued.

Newsweek used the term Generation 9/11 to refer to young people who were between the ages of 10 and 20 years on 11 September 2001. The first reference to "Generation 9/11" was made in the cover story of the November 12, 2001 issue of Newsweek.

In his book The Lucky Few: Between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom, author Elwood Carlson called Millennials the "New Boomers" (born 1983 to 2001), because of the upswing in births after 1983, finishing with the "political and social challenges" that occurred after the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, and the "persistent economic difficulties" of the time. Generally speaking, Millennials are the children of Baby Boomers or Generation Xers, while a few may have parents from the Silent Generation.

In 2006, Australian McCrindle Research Center, used 1982 to 2000 as birth dates in a document titled "Report on the Attitudes and Views of Generations X and Y on Superannuation". Separately, McCrindle has also defined "Generation Y" as those born between 1980 to 1994.

In 2013, a global generational study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers with the University of Southern California and the London Business School defined Millennials as those born between 1980 and 1995.

In May 2013, a Time magazine cover story identified Millennials as those born from 1980 or 1981 to 2000.

In 2014, the Pew Research Center, an American think tank organization, defined "adult Millennials" as those who are 18 to 33 years old, born 1981–1996. And according to them, the youngest Millennials are still "in their teens" with "no chronological end point set for them yet".

In 2015, the Pew Research Center also conducted research regarding generational identity. It was discovered that Millennials, or members of Generation Y, are less likely to strongly identify with the generational term when compared to Generation X or to the baby boomers. It was also found that Millennials chose most often to define itself with more negative terms such as self-absorbed, wasteful or greedy. In this 2015 report, Pew defined Millennials with birth years ranging from 1981 to 1997.

In Canada, the official body of Statistics Canada has declared 1992 as the last year of birth for Generation Y. "

Original Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials


Generation Z:

"Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote several books on the subject of generations and are widely credited with coining the term Millennials. Howe has said "No one knows who will name the next generation after the Millennials". In 2005, their company sponsored an online contest in which respondents voted overwhelmingly for the name Homeland Generation. That was not long after the September 11th terrorist attacks, and one fallout of the disaster was that Americans may have felt more safe staying at home. Howe has described himself as "not totally wed" to the name, and cautioned that "names are being invented by people who have a great press release. Everyone is looking for a hook." Strauss and Howe defined the Homeland Generation as people born from the year 2005 onwards.

In 2012, USA Today sponsored an online contest for readers to choose the name of the next generation after the Millennials. The name Generation Z was suggested, although journalist Bruce Horovitz thought that some might find the term "off-putting". According to Horovitz, the generations begins roughly around 1995.

In 2013, the Nickelodeon channel used the term post-millennials to describe its audience.

iGeneration (or iGen) is a name that several individuals claim to have coined. Psychology professor and author Jean Twenge claims that the name iGen "just popped into her head" while she was driving near Silicon Valley, and that she had intended to use it as the title of her 2006 book Generation Me until it was overridden by her publisher. Demographer Cheryl Russell claims to have first used the term in 2009. In 2014, an NPR news intern noted that iGeneration "seems to be winning" as the name for the post-Millennials. The name has been described as "a wink and nod to Apple's iPod and iPhone", with former Ad Age writer Matt Carmichael noting that the lowercase "i" in iGeneration left room for interpretation, and could also stand for "interactive" or "international".

The Pluralist Generation (also abbreviated as Plurals) is a name coined in 2012 by marketing firm Frank N. Magid Associates, who use 1997 to the present day as birth dates. According to Magid, the name "Plurals" reflects that they are the most diverse of any generation in the United States.

In Australia, a 2005 report from the McCrindle Research Center used 2001 as the starting point of this generation's birth years. A later McCrindle report in 2009 gave a range of 1995-2009, starting with a recorded rise in birth rates, and fitting their newer definition of a generational span as 15 years. Under this definition McCrindle uses birth rates to determine when a new generation emerges rather than or in addition to sociological changes and trends. Statistics Canada defines the generation as starting in 1993."

Original Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z

So in the grand scheme of things me, along with a few others on this forum like Mqg, EazyE-Man, mxcrasher, #infinity, & musicguy93, among others are all on the cusp between Y & Z, though if pressed most of us might be more likely to consider ourselves Late Y rather than Early Z, since we remember all the quintessential Y cultural things like the lack of electronics, Web 1.0 era internet, the golden age of various kid networks, a prosperous economy, kids being treated like Angels, events like Columbine, Y2K, 2000 Election, 9/11, Hurricaine Katrina, and or The Late 2000's Recession
I have actually checked some of those sources that you've cited regarding the start and end of Generation Y and the beginning of generation Z and honestly, I question the validity of their claims so it would be best we just form our opinions based technology and pop culture and which era specific birth years were most influenced by, another thing I wanted to point out is that I noticed that you've put #Infinty who was born in 1992 into the cusp category between Y and Z based on the information you've gathered. I've never thought of those born in 1992 as being on the cusp between generations Y and Z, I still s e the as 100 percent Y. I'm curious to know in your opinion(apologies if you've stated it before and I've missed it) what would you consider the earliest birth year to be placed on the cusp zone between Y and Z or to have some Z traits about them?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/11/15 at 4:45 am


I'm curious to know in your opinion(apologies if you've stated it before and I've missed it) what would you consider the earliest birth year to be placed on the cusp zone between Y and Z or to have some Z traits about them?


I can go ahead and answer my opinion on this one. The earliest birth year to be placed on the cusp zone between Y and Z would probably be late 1995 or 1996 born's (Class of 2014). We were in Kindergarten in 9/11 happened, which makes us the last group of people in a mandatory school year when the tragic event happened, and they even mentioned that to us in our graduation too, but in reality a lot of people say Kindergarten isn't that much different than preschool or pre-K (which is NOT mandatory), while at the same time we weren't technically in grade school yet (1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, etc...) when the tragic event happened. So it's debatable. Personally from my experiences in life, I feel like I relate equally to late Y and early Z, which I don't have a problem with. I can relate equally to 1993 and 1999 born's. The earliest birth year to have some Z traits about the person would probably be 1994 (or maybe late 1994), since they were still in their peak childhood at age 10 in 2004 when the pop culture for kids took a huge shift, while during their core adolescent years people born around roughly 1994 especially the late part, or early 1995 were still in high school when the late Y electropop era shifted into the early Z teen pop era.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/11/15 at 7:12 am


I have actually checked some of those sources that you've cited regarding the start and end of Generation Y and the beginning of generation Z and honestly, I question the validity of their claims so it would be best we just form our opinions based technology and pop culture and which era specific birth years were most influenced by, another thing I wanted to point out is that I noticed that you've put #Infinty who was born in 1992 into the cusp category between Y and Z based on the information you've gathered. I've never thought of those born in 1992 as being on the cusp between generations Y and Z, I still s e the as 100 percent Y. I'm curious to know in your opinion(apologies if you've stated it before and I've missed it) what would you consider the earliest birth year to be placed on the cusp zone between Y and Z or to have some Z traits about them?


Well what I meant to say was that 1991 & 1992 are Core Y, but on the younger side of it. While 1985 & 1986 are Core Y, but on the older side of it. 1987-1990 is the 'meat and potatoes' of Gen Y. The entire Core of Gen Y would be those born from 1985-1992, basically most 90's kids would fall into this category.

1981-1984, are Older Y, although 1983 & 1984 borns might have older Core Y traits like being in their core childhood during the SNES vs Genesis console wars, however in the grand scheme of things they are more on the older end of Y.

Same could be said with those from 1993-1996/7, those from 1993 & 1994 would have younger Core Y traits such as the last to have vivid memories of the Disney renaissance, but in the grand scheme of things they would for the most part be Younger Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/11/15 at 5:09 pm


Personally I just consider myself YZ, since sources cannot figure a proper cutoff.

As a 95er I just say late Y with MINOR Z in me!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/11/15 at 5:57 pm


I can go ahead and answer my opinion on this one. The earliest birth year to be placed on the cusp zone between Y and Z would probably be late 1995 or 1996 born's (Class of 2014). We were in Kindergarten in 9/11 happened, which makes us the last group of people in a mandatory school year when the tragic event happened, and they even mentioned that to us in our graduation too, but in reality a lot of people say Kindergarten isn't that much different than preschool or pre-K (which is NOT mandatory), while at the same time we weren't technically in grade school yet (1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, etc...) when the tragic event happened. So it's debatable. Personally from my experiences in life, I feel like I relate equally to late Y and early Z, which I don't have a problem with. I can relate equally to 1993 and 1999 born's. The earliest birth year to have some Z traits about the person would probably be 1994 (or maybe late 1994), since they were still in their peak childhood at age 10 in 2004 when the pop culture for kids took a huge shift,


DAMN :o , when you say it like that then the 2013 class sounds like the last full Y class and then the 2014 class the first cusper class. 2013 class also turned 5 during the 1999-00 school year, last to start mandatory school before the 21st century started in 2001 and when Clinton was still in office,the older members of the class were able vote in the 2012 election, last to be in high school before the 2000s ended, man it's just CRAZY to think about.


I feel definitely relate more to 1993ers than 1999ers.


And kid culture didn't take a HUGE shift in late 2004, it was just minor looking back, 2006/07 was when they took a MAJOR shift.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 11/11/15 at 7:57 pm


DAMN :o , when you say it like that then the 2013 class sounds like the last full Y class and then the 2014 class the first cusper class. 2013 class also turned 5 during the 1999-00 school year, last to start mandatory school before the 21st century started in 2001 and when Clinton was still in office,the older members of the class were able vote in the 2012 election, last to be in high school before the 2000s ended, man it's just CRAZY to think about.


I feel definitely relate more to 1993ers than 1999ers.


And kid culture didn't take a HUGE shift in late 2004, it was just minor looking back, 2006/07 was when they took a MAJOR shift.


Full Y is 1985-1995. Y cusper is 1996-1999 (still part of Y but has a few Z characteristics). Z cusper is 2000-2002 (still part of Z but has a few Y characteristics). Full Z is 2003-2015.

In 2016, people born in 1996 to 1998 would be able to vote in the elections, and on your last year of high school, you were in the same high school as people born in 1998. You were born in 1995, so yes, that means you can relate more to 1993ers than 1999ers since you were born only 2 years after 1993 and 1999 is 4 years away. For me, since I was born in 1996, I would relate equally to both the 1993ers and the 1999ers and I still consider myself, a 1996er, along with 1993ers and 1999ers on the tail end of Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/11/15 at 8:19 pm


In 2016, people born in 1996 to 1998 would be able to vote in the elections, and on your last year of high school, you were in the same high school as people born in 1998. You were born in 1995, so yes, that means you can relate more to 1993ers than 1999ers since you were born only 2 years after 1993 and 1999 is 4 years away. For me, since I was born in 1996, I would relate equally to both the 1993ers and the 1999ers and I still consider myself, a 1996er, along with 1993ers and 1999ers on the tail end of Y.


I agree, just like I stated earlier, although for what I have in bold, keep in mind, 1995 born's will be voting in the 2016 election for the first time too along with 1996-1998, because they were still 17 during the 2012 election.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/11/15 at 8:24 pm


I agree, just like I stated earlier, although for what I have in bold, keep in mind, 1995 born's will be voting in the 2016 election for the first time too along with 1996-1998, because they were still 17 during the 2012 election.

true! ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/11/15 at 10:16 pm


Full Y is 1985-1995. Y cusper is 1996-1999 (still part of Y but has a few Z characteristics). Z cusper is 2000-2002 (still part of Z but has a few Y characteristics). Full Z is 2003-2015.

In 2016, people born in 1996 to 1998 would be able to vote in the elections, and on your last year of high school, you were in the same high school as people born in 1998. You were born in 1995, so yes, that means you can relate more to 1993ers than 1999ers since you were born only 2 years after 1993 and 1999 is 4 years away. For me, since I was born in 1996, I would relate equally to both the 1993ers and the 1999ers and I still consider myself, a 1996er, along with 1993ers and 1999ers on the tail end of Y.


The only thing I would disagree with the cusp periods is that I would make it more like: 1995-1998. 1999, while would have some Y traits, is when you start to get to mostly Z territory such as being too young to remember 9/11, growing up mostly in the mid-late 00's when social media and cell phones were common, becoming a teen in the 10's, etc. Plus I don't think theres a lot to suggest that 1995 is the last of Core Y and 1996 is the first Cusp Y. Personally, anybody born post 1993 is on the cusp period, with a heavy emphasis on us 1995-1998 borns

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/11/15 at 10:18 pm


I agree, just like I stated earlier, although for what I have in bold, keep in mind, 1995 born's will be voting in the 2016 election for the first time too along with 1996-1998, because they were still 17 during the 2012 election.


Yeah true, its ironic how the cusp years between Y & Z will all be voting in our first election next year

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/11/15 at 10:57 pm


The only thing I would disagree with the cusp periods is that I would make it more like: 1995-1998. 1999, while would have some Y traits, is when you start to get to mostly Z territory such as being too young to remember 9/11, growing up mostly in the mid-late 00's when social media and cell phones were common, becoming a teen in the 10's, etc. Plus I don't think theres a lot to suggest that 1995 is the last of Core Y and 1996 is the first Cusp Y. Personally, anybody born post 1993 is on the cusp period, with a heavy emphasis on us 1995-1998 borns


The last folks who relate to core Y IMO would be 1991 or 1992. By the time you hit 1993 it's gets to late Y, but that's just my opinion though. In your response to the other guy, you're right, because it wouldn't make sense for 1985-1995 to be core Y in a 10 year span because that's too long, like almost all of the generation, and if it jumps to the cusp in 1996 right away, then that's too broad. There's no way someone born around 1993-1995 is in the same type of Y as people born around 1985-1987, it doesn't work that way. The other charts you made when you divided it to early Y, core Y, and late Y were much more accurate.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/11/15 at 10:59 pm


Yeah true, its ironic how the cusp years between Y & Z will all be voting in our first election next year


Here's another fact I must mention about the Y/Z cuspers (1995-1998), not only the 2016 election we're participating in, but we may not have had any elementary school years in the 90's like most Y members, but we didn't have any elementary school years in the 2010's decade like most Z members.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/11/15 at 11:14 pm


The last folks who relate to core Y IMO would be 1991 or 1992. By the time you hit 1993 it's gets to late Y, but that's just my opinion though. In your response to the other guy, you're right, because it wouldn't make sense for 1985-1995 to be core Y in a 10 year span because that's too long, like almost all of the generation, and if it jumps to the cusp in 1996 right away, then that's too broad. There's no way someone born around 1993-1995 is in the same type of Y as people born around 1985-1987, it doesn't work that way. The other charts you made when you divided it to early Y, core Y, and late Y were much more accurate.


Thanks glad you agree!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/11/15 at 11:16 pm


Here's another fact I must mention about the Y/Z cuspers (1995-1998), not only the 2016 election we're participating in, but we may not have had any elementary school years in the 90's like most Y members, but we didn't have any elementary school years in the 2010's decade like most Z members.


Yeah thats pretty ironic, along with the fact that we all graduated high school from 2013-2016, basically the core years of the 10's

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/11/15 at 11:34 pm


Yeah thats pretty ironic, along with the fact that we all graduated high school from 2013-2016, basically the core years of the 10's

the 2012-13 school year core? ??? that's debatable.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/12/15 at 12:05 am


the 2012-13 school year core? ??? that's debatable.


At least from where I lived, it definitely became core 2010's by the 2nd half of that school year that's for sure. Once Harlem Shake came out that's when it really took off, and even the new teen pop music phase had already taken off around 2012 which made 2013 the first full year of it. Also, while I consider 2012 as the first year of the 2010's decade that brought out some 2010's defining decade movies like Avengers or Ted, Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2 was the last movie that came out during that year that was late 2000's influenced, matter of fact, 2012 was the last gasp of any late 2000's influences kinda similar to how 2003 was to the 2000's when it was the last gasp of any late 90's influences. By 2013 you definitely had strictly core 2010's pop culture and movies as well, and literally as soon as the year started too. Maybe you could say that the 2012-2013 school year as a whole was transitional. However, by the time Class of 2013 graduated like literally in May or June 2013 the core 2010's was already in full effect.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/12/15 at 12:16 am


At least from where I lived, it definitely became core 2010's by the 2nd half of that school year that's for sure. Once Harlem Shake came out that's when it really took off, and even the new teen pop music phase had already taken off around 2012 which made 2013 the first full year of it. Also, while I consider 2012 as the first year of the 2010's decade that brought out some 2010's defining decade movies like Avengers or Ted, Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2 was the last movie that came out during that year that was late 2000's influenced, matter of fact, 2012 was the last gasp of any late 2000's influences kinda similar to how 2003 was to the 2000's when it was the last gasp of any late 90's influences. By 2013 you definitely had strictly core 2010's pop culture and movies as well, and literally as soon as the year started too. Maybe you could say that the 2012-2013 school year as a whole was transitional. However, by the time Class of 2013 graduated like literally in May or June 2013 the core 2010's was already in full effect.


Yeah, but they were finished with high school by that point! Their high school years would have been STRICTLY the early 2010s ''electropop era'', not the core 2010s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/12/15 at 12:19 am


I agree, just like I stated earlier, although for what I have in bold, keep in mind, 1995 born's will be voting in the 2016 election for the first time too along with 1996-1998, because they were still 17 during the 2012 election.

Yeah, that's kinda weird though cause  where I lived, the older members of the class of 2013(late 94ers)were actually able to vote.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 11/12/15 at 1:43 am


The last folks who relate to core Y IMO would be 1991 or 1992. By the time you hit 1993 it's gets to late Y, but that's just my opinion though. In your response to the other guy, you're right, because it wouldn't make sense for 1985-1995 to be core Y in a 10 year span because that's too long, like almost all of the generation, and if it jumps to the cusp in 1996 right away, then that's too broad. There's no way someone born around 1993-1995 is in the same type of Y as people born around 1985-1987, it doesn't work that way. The other charts you made when you divided it to early Y, core Y, and late Y were much more accurate.


I still think it's strange to act as if there's a huge difference between someone born in 1992 and someone born in 1993. Let me give you an example. I have two cousins. One was born in March 1992, and the other was born in August 1996. I, myself was born in October 1993. By your logic, I have more in common with my younger cousin, who is almost 3 years younger than me, than my older cousin, who is roughly a year and half older than me. When it comes to childhood, my childhood was more similar to my 1992 born cousin. Now that we're in adulthood, menial age differences don't really matter obviously.

You claim that there's no way that someone born around 1993-1995 is the same type of Y as the ones born from 1985-1987. However, the same could be argued for 1992 borns. 1990 could relate to those born during those years, 1991 maybe, but not 1992.

In my opinion, if people born in 1993 are late Y, then they definitely have influences of core Y. You have to realize that these groupings aren't rigid. Influences from one group to the previous/following group does bleed through. So, even if those born in 1992 are just barely core Y, they still have a lot of similarities to late Y. And even if those born in 1993 are just barely late Y, they still has similarities to core Y. To be honest though, grouping specific age groups within generations can get pretty arbitrary. There will be someone born in 1991 arguing why they should be core Y, giving specific reasons from childhood. Or there might be someone born in 1994 trying to squeeze into either core Y or late Y. At the end of the day, nothing really is set in stone.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/12/15 at 6:42 am


I still think it's strange to act as if there's a huge difference between someone born in 1992 and someone born in 1993. Let me give you an example. I have two cousins. One was born in March 1992, and the other was born in August 1996. I, myself was born in October 1993. By your logic, I have more in common with my younger cousin, who is almost 3 years younger than me, than my older cousin, who is roughly a year and half older than me. When it comes to childhood, my childhood was more similar to my 1992 born cousin. Now that we're in adulthood, menial age differences don't really matter obviously.

You claim that there's no way that someone born around 1993-1995 is the same type of Y as the ones born from 1985-1987. However, the same could be argued for 1992 borns. 1990 could relate to those born during those years, 1991 maybe, but not 1992.

In my opinion, if people born in 1993 are late Y, then they definitely have influences of core Y. You have to realize that these groupings aren't rigid. Influences from one group to the previous/following group does bleed through. So, even if those born in 1992 are just barely core Y, they still have a lot of similarities to late Y. And even if those born in 1993 are just barely late Y, they still has similarities to core Y. To be honest though, grouping specific age groups within generations can get pretty arbitrary. There will be someone born in 1991 arguing why they should be core Y, giving specific reasons from childhood. Or there might be someone born in 1994 trying to squeeze into either core Y or late Y. At the end of the day, nothing really is set in stone.


Preach!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/12/15 at 7:02 am


Yeah, but they were finished with high school by that point! Their high school years would have been STRICTLY the early 2010s ''electropop era'', not the core 2010s.


Yeah thats true, but what I was getting at was that they came of age in Mid 2013 right around when Z culture was taking over Y culture. So your right they did spend most of their HS years in the electropop era just like the C/O 2014, but like 14' they would of been upperclassmen in high school when Z culture was popping in. Like mqg said, around the second half of the school year, or for me personally around the last quarter, there was a shift. Iphones were now a neccsisity, Windows 8 was now the prime of jokes, Xbox One & PS4 were announceced, Blurred Lines came onto the scene starting up the new disco revival, Demi Lovato, Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus, Lorde, & Selena Gomez were now the new faces of modern/teen pop, One Direction was now in its prime, Lady Gaga fell off, hipster fashion was starting to enter its peak, etc.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/12/15 at 7:05 am


Yeah, but they were finished with high school by that point! Their high school years would have been STRICTLY the early 2010s ''electropop era'', not the core 2010s.


True, but I'm not talking about what era we were in throughout the majority of their high school years, I'm talking about what era we were already in by the time they threw their graduation hats in the air. Yes, the majority of Class of 2013's high school years were strictly electropop of course, while Class of 2014's high school years would be about half n' half electropop and core 2010's. However, I'm just saying that when the Class of 2013 graduate, the core 2010's had already begun and the peak of the electropop was clearly over. Now of course I'm not lumping those in the Class of 2013 with 2016, because it's obvious that hardly any of 2016's high school years were spent in the electropop, but then again, I'm just referring to when those graduate. I think a better definition would be like Classes of 2013-2016 will graduate during Obama's 2nd term. Class of 2017 could say that most of their high school years were spent in Obama's 2nd term, but it doesn't change the fact that there will be a new president right before they graduate, so the fact remains that the Classes of 2017-2020 will graduate during our new president's 1st term, even though Class of 2017 mostly had their high school years with Obama's 2nd term, or Class of 2018 would be half n' half, etc.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/12/15 at 7:24 am


I still think it's strange to act as if there's a huge difference between someone born in 1992 and someone born in 1993. Let me give you an example. I have two cousins. One was born in March 1992, and the other was born in August 1996. I, myself was born in October 1993. By your logic, I have more in common with my younger cousin, who is almost 3 years younger than me, than my older cousin, who is roughly a year and half older than me. When it comes to childhood, my childhood was more similar to my 1992 born cousin. Now that we're in adulthood, menial age differences don't really matter obviously.

You claim that there's no way that someone born around 1993-1995 is the same type of Y as the ones born from 1985-1987. However, the same could be argued for 1992 borns. 1990 could relate to those born during those years, 1991 maybe, but not 1992.

In my opinion, if people born in 1993 are late Y, then they definitely have influences of core Y. You have to realize that these groupings aren't rigid. Influences from one group to the previous/following group does bleed through. So, even if those born in 1992 are just barely core Y, they still have a lot of similarities to late Y. And even if those born in 1993 are just barely late Y, they still has similarities to core Y. To be honest though, grouping specific age groups within generations can get pretty arbitrary. There will be someone born in 1991 arguing why they should be core Y, giving specific reasons from childhood. Or there might be someone born in 1994 trying to squeeze into either core Y or late Y. At the end of the day, nothing really is set in stone.


Well I was referring to OcarinaFan's original chart. When I read his original chart of early Y, core Y, and late Y before he edited. Honestly, I felt like 1992 related more to late Y than core Y at first going by the majority of the comments I've seen all over blogs on the internet when it comes to nostalgia and interests, before I saw more comments on this site and learned a lot. My opinion has changed since then. Everybody has their own opinion on this stuff. Personally, I define core childhood as age 6-10, and I define core adolescence as age 14-18 (before you graduate high school). Like what ever years of your childhood you spent the majority of the time 6-10 is what culture most people on average identify with the most on a kid's perspective, while what ever years you spent the majority of your time 14-18 is the pop culture you identify with the most from a teen's perspective.

However, it's absolutely normal that you can remember movies and some pop culture from your early childhood at age 3-5. Age 11-13 is kinda iffy in the middle, like late childhood but early adolescence at the same time, also known as the puberty stage. Also, when I said that there's no way 1993-1995 can relate to 1985-1987, I mean in terms of childhood and adolescence I just don't see it. By the time someone born in 1993 started elementary school someone born in 1987 had just started middle school, which are two completely different stages. I'm not talking about those in the middle (1988-1992) who could obviously relate to both sides. 1991 & 1992 leaning towards 1993-1995. 1988 & 1989 leaning towards 1985-1987. 1990 being the absolute most even who could relate to both sides. Of course influence is going to happen, but you're still closer to the other side.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: TheKid99 on 11/12/15 at 8:53 am

I may not relate to you people born in the early 1990s but I can relate to my expanation of what generation I am in.

I was born in October of 1999. Now many of you may say that I am Gen. Z, which I agree. However as many of you are saying I have slight Gen Y characteristics. Now contrary to what everybody thinks about people born in this year, I did not grow up with Youtube or Social Media and stuff like that. I played outside like a normal kid, had computers in my early life with Windows 98 and Windows 2000 which we didnt upgrade to Windows XP until late 2004. I may have been to young to have remembered 9/11, but unlike what Buzzfeed says about us, I knew floppy disks, had a VHS the whole family used and didnt upgrade to DVD until 2005. I have a twin brother and two older brothers, the oldest born in August of 1996 and my other brother born in September of 1997 and because of this became accustomed to pop culture earlier than most, around 2009. The first mass media event in my life I really remembered was Hurricane Katrina which happened right on my first day of Kindergarten.We got our first video game system, the Wii in 2008 even though I watched my cousin play his Gamecube alot. I was this weird weather obssessed kid and watched the Weather Channel all night seeing what was happening and was tired through out my first day of school. I did not really find out about YouTube until around 2007, when my brothers introduced it to me. I remembered the housing bubble popping and was really affected by it, since we had to foreclose on our house in December of 2010. I dont really rememeber Lehman Brothers going bankrupt as we lost power for four days during that time due to the remnants of Hurricane Ike coming thorugh and almost everybody in the Cincinnati Metro area lost power due to the 70 mph. winds. The Great Recession really affected our household, but later than most. Our bottom was the year 2013 when my parents lost their jobs and we were not doing too good.Our family was lucky enough to have some savings and weathered through it. The foreclosure was tough as we had to move to a much smaller house after we moved form our sprawling 3000 sq. ft ranch. I beleive since I have older brothers that were arguably on the cusp on Gen Y or Gen Y that I had gotten characteristics from that. I know I am Generation Z and embrace it fully and many people are underestimating the impact that the Great Recession had and will have on my generation. I came of age around 2012 but listened to popular music much before the. The first song I really remembered was Crank That by Souja Boy in late 2007. That was such an oveprlayed song and everyone in my age group danced to that. I also remember some people had heelys and I wanted them so bad. My oldest brother introduced me to pop music in 2009 lsitening to Lady Gaga, Ke$ha, Taio Cruz. I listened to pop music alot and enjoyed the Electropop era of music from 2009-early 2012. I really listened to pop music in 2012 and 2013. 2014 was a really big step down in pop music but this year has been better than year past.

There is this weird era of people born from mid-1998-mid-2001 that many of those people that I know personally, cause you know its my age group, have both Gen Y and Z characteristics. Many of us have older sibings that are either cusp y or full y and got characterisitcs from their experiences. I am not saying that I am Gen Y as I am for sure knowing that I am Generation Z. I remembered shows that were Y and Z as I watched House of Mouse, Thats So Raven, Proud Family, Neds Declassified School Survival Guide and Zoey 101 but also watched shows like iCarly, Victorious, Dance Acadamy, Girl Meets World, How to Rock, Good Luck Charlie, etc. I didnt use social media unti 2009 and my first account will make many of you laugh, I used AIM. Our whole grade used it and I think we were the last grade to ever really use that to communicate with others. I got a Facebook in 2011, Instagram and Twitter in 2012 and a Snapchat in 2014. The first cell phone I got was an Alcatel One Touch slider in December of 2013, it was a touch phone but had a slideout keyboard. I got my current phone and first smartphone, my yellow iPhone 5c in December of 2014.

Many people born around my time cannot fully relate to those who grew up with Nintendo 64, Pokemon or remembered 9/11 but we also cant relate to those who grew up with iPads, iPhones and Social Media by the time they were 6 or 7 years old. I know I am new to this forum and dont really know too much about things, but thank you for reading.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 11/12/15 at 11:04 am

Hey you guys. Check out this article I found a week ago. It sums up the characteristics of the cohorts within generations and it helps present which group we're part of.

http://curatti.com/generation-c-evolution-micro-generations/

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/12/15 at 11:15 am


I may not relate to you people born in the early 1990s but I can relate to my expanation of what generation I am in.

I was born in October of 1999. Now many of you may say that I am Gen. Z, which I agree. However as many of you are saying I have slight Gen Y characteristics. Now contrary to what everybody thinks about people born in this year, I did not grow up with Youtube or Social Media and stuff like that. I played outside like a normal kid, had computers in my early life with Windows 98 and Windows 2000 which we didnt upgrade to Windows XP until late 2004. I may have been to young to have remembered 9/11, but unlike what Buzzfeed says about us, I knew floppy disks, had a VHS the whole family used and didnt upgrade to DVD until 2005. I have a twin brother and two older brothers, the oldest born in August of 1996 and my other brother born in September of 1997 and because of this became accustomed to pop culture earlier than most, around 2009. The first mass media event in my life I really remembered was Hurricane Katrina which happened right on my first day of Kindergarten.We got our first video game system, the Wii in 2008 even though I watched my cousin play his Gamecube alot. I was this weird weather obssessed kid and watched the Weather Channel all night seeing what was happening and was tired through out my first day of school. I did not really find out about YouTube until around 2007, when my brothers introduced it to me. I remembered the housing bubble popping and was really affected by it, since we had to foreclose on our house in December of 2010. I dont really rememeber Lehman Brothers going bankrupt as we lost power for four days during that time due to the remnants of Hurricane Ike coming thorugh and almost everybody in the Cincinnati Metro area lost power due to the 70 mph. winds. The Great Recession really affected our household, but later than most. Our bottom was the year 2013 when my parents lost their jobs and we were not doing too good.Our family was lucky enough to have some savings and weathered through it. The foreclosure was tough as we had to move to a much smaller house after we moved form our sprawling 3000 sq. ft ranch. I beleive since I have older brothers that were arguably on the cusp on Gen Y or Gen Y that I had gotten characteristics from that. I know I am Generation Z and embrace it fully and many people are underestimating the impact that the Great Recession had and will have on my generation. I came of age around 2012 but listened to popular music much before the. The first song I really remembered was Crank That by Souja Boy in late 2007. That was such an oveprlayed song and everyone in my age group danced to that. I also remember some people had heelys and I wanted them so bad. My oldest brother introduced me to pop music in 2009 lsitening to Lady Gaga, Ke$ha, Taio Cruz. I listened to pop music alot and enjoyed the Electropop era of music from 2009-early 2012. I really listened to pop music in 2012 and 2013. 2014 was a really big step down in pop music but this year has been better than year past.

There is this weird era of people born from mid-1998-mid-2001 that many of those people that I know personally, cause you know its my age group, have both Gen Y and Z characteristics. Many of us have older sibings that are either cusp y or full y and got characterisitcs from their experiences. I am not saying that I am Gen Y as I am for sure knowing that I am Generation Z. I remembered shows that were Y and Z as I watched House of Mouse, Thats So Raven, Proud Family, Neds Declassified School Survival Guide and Zoey 101 but also watched shows like iCarly, Victorious, Dance Acadamy, Girl Meets World, How to Rock, Good Luck Charlie, etc. I didnt use social media unti 2009 and my first account will make many of you laugh, I used AIM. Our whole grade used it and I think we were the last grade to ever really use that to communicate with others. I got a Facebook in 2011, Instagram and Twitter in 2012 and a Snapchat in 2014. The first cell phone I got was an Alcatel One Touch slider in December of 2013, it was a touch phone but had a slideout keyboard. I got my current phone and first smartphone, my yellow iPhone 5c in December of 2014.

Many people born around my time cannot fully relate to those who grew up with Nintendo 64, Pokemon or remembered 9/11 but we also cant relate to those who grew up with iPads, iPhones and Social Media by the time they were 6 or 7 years old. I know I am new to this forum and dont really know too much about things, but thank you for reading.


Thanks for sharing man! Yeah I would say that the C/O 2017 & C/O 2018 are the last classes to have any Y traits what so ever, but are still mostly Z. Now like you said theres a major difference between yourself and a kid right now. I have little cousins, mostly in the 6-9 age range, and they are the prime of Gen Z, they have tablets, play on their parents smartphones, go on YouTube, etc. While you were exposed to social media at a pretty young age, its no where near the same amount as kids these days

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/12/15 at 11:16 am


Hey you guys. Check out this article I found a week ago. It sums up the characteristics of the cohorts within generations and it helps present which group we're part of.

http://curatti.com/generation-c-evolution-micro-generations/


Thanks for this, yeah this was pretty accurate. I'm confused though, for 1994ers would they be late Y or Early Z? Or would it mean that those from the first half of the year are Y and the second half are Z?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/12/15 at 11:22 am


Hey you guys. Check out this article I found a week ago. It sums up the characteristics of the cohorts within generations and it helps present which group we're part of.

http://curatti.com/generation-c-evolution-micro-generations/


Why does he say that Punk Rock is a Millennial thing? It's more of a Generation X thing than anything. Even Punk-revival bands like Green Day and The Offspring are more for Gen X than the Millennials.

I think the generations work like this:

Baby Boomers: 1945-1961
Generation X: 1962-1980
Millennials: 1981-1997. Maybe 1998 (I am a bit torn on whether or not 1998 is a Millennial or i year)
Generation i: 1998/1999-???


Thanks for this, yeah this was pretty accurate. I'm confused though, for 1994ers would they be late Y or Early Z? Or would it mean that those from the first half of the year are Y and the second half are Z?


If you ask me, I think 1993-1997 born kids are all late Millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/12/15 at 11:28 am


Hey you guys. Check out this article I found a week ago. It sums up the characteristics of the cohorts within generations and it helps present which group we're part of.

http://curatti.com/generation-c-evolution-micro-generations/


See, I'd be more comfortable being called Generation Z if they divided it into shorter generations like this. However, the main problem is that most of the recent articles especially the NY times ones are cutting it off around 1995 or 1996 which makes me go crazy not knowing where I am, then I look at the stereotypes for Y or Z and I get mad with some of the Z characteristics but I'm fine with most of the Y characteristics while I don't relate to all of it. I'm just perfectly find with being a late Y/early Z cusper.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 11/12/15 at 1:16 pm


Thanks for this, yeah this was pretty accurate. I'm confused though, for 1994ers would they be late Y or Early Z? Or would it mean that those from the first half of the year are Y and the second half are Z?
Yeah, that's weird. I think what the article is stating is that the 2012 class are the last of Y while the 2013 class are are the first of Z.



See, I'd be more comfortable being called Generation Z if they divided it into shorter generations like this. However, the main problem is that most of the recent articles especially the NY times ones are cutting it off around 1995 or 1996 which makes me go crazy not knowing where I am, then I look at the stereotypes for Y or Z and I get mad with some of the Z characteristics but I'm fine with most of the Y characteristics while I don't relate to all of it. I'm just perfectly find with being a late Y/early Z cusper.


Yeah, I read those articles from time to time and there's always a Z date beginning with those two years. I feel like in the end, your class will be considered Y as by then more time will have passed giving articles a chance to determine what year someone is fully Z or pure Y might end with 1989 or 1990 making everyone else after that partly Z.


Why does he say that Punk Rock is a Millennial thing? It's more of a Generation X thing than anything. Even Punk-revival bands like Green Day and The Offspring are more for Gen X than the Millennials.

I think the generations work like this:

Baby Boomers: 1945-1961
Generation X: 1962-1980
Millennials: 1981-1997. Maybe 1998 (I am a bit torn on whether or not 1998 is a Millennial or i year)
Generation i: 1998/1999-???

If you ask me, I think 1993-1997 born kids are all late Millennials.


I think it's because millennials were adolescents when that genre was popular. The bands you listed were huge during the 90s and the millennial era which coincided with you and the first wave of our generation being in MS and HS at the time.

Well it depends on when Y begins as well. There's some people in your age range who are tired of being placed as a millennial and would rather be considered an Xer instead. I've seen articles beginning Y early as 1977 and late as 1985.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/12/15 at 1:35 pm


I think it's because millennials were adolescents when that genre was popular. The bands you listed were huge during the 90s and the millennial era which coincided with you and the first wave of our generation being in MS and HS at the time.

Well it depends on when Y begins as well. There's some people in your age range who are tired of being placed as a millennial and would rather be considered an Xer instead. I've seen articles beginning Y early as 1977 and late as 1985.


That is true but Punk was around in the 70's and 80's and was an X thing until 1995/1996 when kids my age started in High School. If he said "Punk Revival" I would of agreed because bands like blink-182, Sum 41, Homegrown and MxPx got pretty big during the 1998-2002 era when the early Millennials were in High School and College.

Yeah, a lot of guys my age don't identify with the tight pants hipster trends of today but a lot of other 32/33 years old do (as I've mentioned in this very thread). It's a tricky thing. Even I identify with X more than I do Millennial but I don't really get irked when someone says I'm a Millennial. It's like three era's of Millennials. There's the 1995-2002 millennials (who might identify more with X), the 2003-2007 millennials and the 2008-2015 millennials (who might have traits of Gen i). I should ask my brother and sister what they think about it. If 1977 is the first Millennial year, you better not tell Early90sGuy that he's a Millennial. He might get pretty upset about it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/12/15 at 1:44 pm


Why does he say that Punk Rock is a Millennial thing? It's more of a Generation X thing than anything. Even Punk-revival bands like Green Day and The Offspring are more for Gen X than the Millennials.

I think the generations work like this:

Baby Boomers: 1945-1961

Generation X: 1962-1980
Millennials: 1981-1997. Maybe 1998 (I am a bit torn on whether or not 1998 is a Millennial or i year)
Generation i: 1998/1999-???

If you ask me, I think 1993-1997 born kids are all late Millennials.

Most people say 1946-1964 are the boomers and 1965-1981 are the Xers

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/12/15 at 1:48 pm


If 1977 is the first Millennial year, you better not tell Early90sGuy that he's a Millennial. He might get pretty upset about it.

lol ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/12/15 at 1:49 pm


Most people say 1946-1964 are the boomers and 1965-1981 are the Xers


I said 1945 because of the end of WWII but 1946 works, too. 1965 seems a bit late, don't you think? I know some 1962'ers and 1963'ers who hate being called Boomers.

I said 1981 because, in my experience, when I started High School, all the Gen X kids (born 1980 and before) were all still into Grunge and flannel where as us 1982'ers and 1981'ers had already abandoned that look during Middle School. In 1996, the 10th graders had more in common with us 9th graders than they did the 11th and 12th graders. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 11/12/15 at 3:25 pm


That is true but Punk was around in the 70's and 80's and was an X thing until 1995/1996 when kids my age started in High School. If he said "Punk Revival" I would of agreed because bands like blink-182, Sum 41, Homegrown and MxPx got pretty big during the 1998-2002 era when the early Millennials were in High School and College.

Yeah, a lot of guys my age don't identify with the tight pants hipster trends of today but a lot of other 32/33 years old do (as I've mentioned in this very thread). It's a tricky thing. Even I identify with X more than I do Millennial but I don't really get irked when someone says I'm a Millennial. It's like three era's of Millennials. There's the 1995-2002 millennials (who might identify more with X), the 2003-2007 millennials and the 2008-2015 millennials (who might have traits of Gen i). I should ask my brother and sister what they think about it. If 1977 is the first Millennial year, you better not tell Early90sGuy that he's a Millennial. He might get pretty upset about it.


I have seen it that way before. I have read some articles stating there are 2 waves of millennials; however, in those waves, the first one is Generation Y and the second is Z. I find this weird because Millennials/Y are the same. In fact, I was arguing with someone on another site that both Y and Millennials are the same and he responded with that no they are not and would wish he would stop being lumped in the millennial label. There's some people out there who think the Millennials begin in the late 80s while Y is most of the decade.

Here are the articles making that state about the two waves.

http://www.slj.com/2013/07/teens-ya/mtv-survey-groups-millennials-into-harry-potter-or-katniss-everdeen-camp/

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-mtv-study-shows-sharp-differences-between-younger-and-older-millennials-211971261.html

http://www.hdsb.ca/Community/PIC/Documents/BoysandLiteracy.pdf

I won't, but he's not a pure millennial. He's just part of the X/Y transition.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 11/12/15 at 5:32 pm


Well I was referring to OcarinaFan's original chart. When I read his original chart of early Y, core Y, and late Y before he edited. Honestly, I felt like 1992 related more to late Y than core Y at first going by the majority of the comments I've seen all over blogs on the internet when it comes to nostalgia and interests, before I saw more comments on this site and learned a lot. My opinion has changed since then. Everybody has their own opinion on this stuff. Personally, I define core childhood as age 6-10, and I define core adolescence as age 14-18 (before you graduate high school). Like what ever years of your childhood you spent the majority of the time 6-10 is what culture most people on average identify with the most on a kid's perspective, while what ever years you spent the majority of your time 14-18 is the pop culture you identify with the most from a teen's perspective.

However, it's absolutely normal that you can remember movies and some pop culture from your early childhood at age 3-5. Age 11-13 is kinda iffy in the middle, like late childhood but early adolescence at the same time, also known as the puberty stage. Also, when I said that there's no way 1993-1995 can relate to 1985-1987, I mean in terms of childhood and adolescence I just don't see it. By the time someone born in 1993 started elementary school someone born in 1987 had just started middle school, which are two completely different stages. I'm not talking about those in the middle (1988-1992) who could obviously relate to both sides. 1991 & 1992 leaning towards 1993-1995. 1988 & 1989 leaning towards 1985-1987. 1990 being the absolute most even who could relate to both sides. Of course influence is going to happen, but you're still closer to the other side.
Well personally if you are comparing 91ers to both 87ers and 95ers we are talking about a 4 year age difference in both directions, so we are no closer to those born in 1995 than we are to those born in 1987. Overall I think that 91ers are culturally more similar to 87ers than to 95ers despite the equal age difference. One of the main reasons I feel this way is because we spent most of our teens in 2the 2000s just like 87ers and we have some 90s childhood experience that we have, hell I feel that I can even relate more to 86ers than to 94ers in some ways as a 91er, yeah I know that may sound like a stretch but that's how I feel considering the fact that some of my earliest gaming experiences come from old school 2 bit consoles(SNES and genesis) as opposed to 3d consoles(n64, playstation, etc)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 11/12/15 at 10:47 pm


I agree, just like I stated earlier, although for what I have in bold, keep in mind, 1995 born's will be voting in the 2016 election for the first time too along with 1996-1998, because they were still 17 during the 2012 election.


Not sure if you've ever seen this, but one thing I've come across before on a few of these generational "qualification" lists is that, in order to qualify as a part of Gen Y, you had to have been old enough to vote for Barack Obama at least once (not that you had to vote for Obama, just that you could've done so in either '08 or '12 if that was your persuasion). I'm not sure I necessarily buy into that theory, it's just something I've seen.

I suppose you could say that one qualification for being "Older Y" is the ability to have voted either for or against George W. Bush in 2000 or 2004. I was just one year shy of being old enough to vote in 2004, but since I consider people my age to be on the "Core Y" side of things anyway I think that fits.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/12/15 at 11:19 pm


Not sure if you've ever seen this, but one thing I've come across before on a few of these generational "qualification" lists is that, in order to qualify as a part of Gen Y, you had to have been old enough to vote for Barack Obama at least once (not that you had to vote for Obama, just that you could've done so in either '08 or '12 if that was your persuasion). I'm not sure I necessarily buy into that theory, it's just something I've seen.

I suppose you could say that one qualification for being "Older Y" is the ability to have voted either for or against George W. Bush in 2000 or 2004. I was just one year shy of being old enough to vote in 2004, but since I consider people my age to be on the "Core Y" side of things anyway I think that fits.


Now that you mention it, that does make a lot of sense. The weird cuspy era between late Xers born in 1979 & 1980 and early Yers born in 1981 & 1982 would of first voted in 2000 during the controversial Gore vs. Bush race, then the older Yers or Older Core Y members born from 1983-1986 in 2004 with Bush vs. Kerry, then in 2008 the first core Yers born from 1987-1990 with Obama vs. Mccain, then the last of core Yers and the first cuspy Yers born from 1991-1994 (although with plenty of core traits as well) in 2012 with Obama vs. Romney, then finally the late Gen Yers born in 1995 & 1996 and the early Gen Zers born in 1997 & 1998 with the 2016 election

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/12/15 at 11:48 pm


Not sure if you've ever seen this, but one thing I've come across before on a few of these generational "qualification" lists is that, in order to qualify as a part of Gen Y, you had to have been old enough to vote for Barack Obama at least once (not that you had to vote for Obama, just that you could've done so in either '08 or '12 if that was your persuasion). I'm not sure I necessarily buy into that theory, it's just something I've seen.

I suppose you could say that one qualification for being "Older Y" is the ability to have voted either for or against George W. Bush in 2000 or 2004. I was just one year shy of being old enough to vote in 2004, but since I consider people my age to be on the "Core Y" side of things anyway I think that fits.

So you think Obama is the quintessential Y president?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 11/13/15 at 2:45 am


Now that you mention it, that does make a lot of sense. The weird cuspy era between late Xers born in 1979 & 1980 and early Yers born in 1981 & 1982 would of first voted in 2000 during the controversial Gore vs. Bush race, then the older Yers or Older Core Y members born from 1983-1986 in 2004 with Bush vs. Kerry, then in 2008 the first core Yers born from 1987-1990 with Obama vs. Mccain, then the last of core Yers and the first cuspy Yers born from 1991-1994 (although with plenty of core traits as well) in 2012 with Obama vs. Romney, then finally the late Gen Yers born in 1995 & 1996 and the early Gen Zers born in 1997 & 1998 with the 2016 election


Yeah, politics doesn't get mentioned that much in these generational discussions, but, if you look at it, you can actually divide generations fairly accurately based on presidential elections. If you went back and looked at the youngest age groups that could vote for the first time in each election since 1960 (remembering that the voting age was not lowered to 18 until 1971) this is how it comes out:

1960 (Kennedy vs. Nixon): 1936-1939 (Peak Silents)
1964 (Johnson vs. Goldwater): 1940-1943 (Late Silents)
1968 (Nixon vs. Humphrey): 1944-1947 (Silent/Boomer Cuspers)
1972 (Nixon vs. McGovern): 1948-1954 (Peak Boomers)
1976 (Carter vs. Ford): 1955-1958 (Late Boomers)
1980 (Reagan vs. Carter): 1959-1962 (Gen "Jonesers")
1984 (Reagan vs. Mondale): 1963-1966 (Early Xers)
1988 (GHW Bush vs. Dukakis): 1967-1970 (Peak "Brat Pack era" Xers)
1992 (Clinton vs. GHW Bush): 1971-1974 (Peak "Singles era" Xers)
1996 (Clinton vs. Dole): 1975-1978 (Late Xers)
2000 (GW Bush vs. Gore): 1979-1982 (X/Y Cuspers)
2004 (GW Bush vs. Kerry): 1983-1986 (Early Yers)
2008 (Obama vs. McCain): 1987-1990 (Peak "Mean Girls era" Yers)
2012 (Obama vs. Romney): 1991-1994 (Peak "Electropop era" Yers)
2016 (? vs. ?): 1995-1998 (Y/Z Cuspers)
2020 (? vs. ?): 1999-2002 (Early Zers)

It's not perfect, but I actually think that the presidential election metric is a fairly accurate way to measure the various cohorts within generations. Either way, this is easily the geekiest post I've had in ten years. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 11/13/15 at 6:05 am


Now that you mention it, that does make a lot of sense. The weird cuspy era between late Xers born in 1979 & 1980 and early Yers born in 1981 & 1982 would of first voted in 2000 during the controversial Gore vs. Bush race, then the older Yers or Older Core Y members born from 1983-1986 in 2004 with Bush vs. Kerry, then in 2008 the first core Yers born from 1987-1990 with Obama vs. Mccain, then the last of core Yers and the first cuspy Yers born from 1991-1994 (although with plenty of core traits as well) in 2012 with Obama vs. Romney, then finally the late Gen Yers born in 1995 & 1996 and the early Gen Zers born in 1997 & 1998 with the 2016 election
1994 aren't really cushy between peak Y, they are actually more late Y being that they did not become legal until 2012. I think if you spent most of your adolescence and became legal in the 2000s decade, even if it's 2009, you have a legitimate claim to being part of the core Y cohort and maybe 2010 as well. Anything past that is late Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 11/13/15 at 7:24 am


Yeah, politics doesn't get mentioned that much in these generational discussions, but, if you look at it, you can actually divide generations fairly accurately based on presidential elections. If you went back and looked at the youngest age groups that could vote for the first time in each election since 1960 (remembering that the voting age was not lowered to 18 until 1971) this is how it comes out:

1960 (Kennedy vs. Nixon): 1936-1939 (Peak Silents)
1964 (Johnson vs. Goldwater): 1940-1943 (Late Silents)
1968 (Nixon vs. Humphrey): 1944-1947 (Silent/Boomer Cuspers)
1972 (Nixon vs. McGovern): 1948-1954 (Peak Boomers)
1976 (Carter vs. Ford): 1955-1958 (Late Boomers)
1980 (Reagan vs. Carter): 1959-1962 (Gen "Jonesers")
1984 (Reagan vs. Mondale): 1963-1966 (Early Xers)
1988 (GHW Bush vs. Dukakis): 1967-1970 (Peak "Brat Pack era" Xers)
1992 (Clinton vs. GHW Bush): 1971-1974 (Peak "Singles era" Xers)
1996 (Clinton vs. Dole): 1975-1978 (Late Xers)
2000 (GW Bush vs. Gore): 1979-1982 (X/Y Cuspers)
2004 (GW Bush vs. Kerry): 1983-1986 (Early Yers)
2008 (Obama vs. McCain): 1987-1990 (Peak "Mean Girls era" Yers)
2012 (Obama vs. Romney): 1991-1994 (Peak "Electropop era" Yers)
2016 (? vs. ?): 1995-1998 (Y/Z Cuspers)
2020 (? vs. ?): 1999-2002 (Early Zers)

It's not perfect, but I actually think that the presidential election metric is a fairly accurate way to measure the various cohorts within generations. Either way, this is easily the geekiest post I've had in ten years. ;D
Well that's from a political aspect, I believe there are many other factors in determining what cohort of people belong together  outside of politics, for example, those born in 1991 turned 13 in 2004,the same year the movie "Mean Girls" came and that movie was directly targeted to girls were around ages of 12/13-16 am I right? If you are going by a pop cultural perspective the Mean Girls cohort could be anyone born from late 1987- mid 1992 about those born from 1993-1996 I see as being more the "I know who killed me" Twiglight cohort" . If we use the turning 16 years old rule and say your teen era belongs to any era in which one turns 16 in I think we can acurattely divide cohorts. So in that case I see 2003-2007 as the core 2000s Elmo era so you can say the cohort that best fits into that era are those born from 1987-1991. These people experienced punk, snap rap and emo culture as part of their peak adolescence. 1992 borns I would say are in the middle being that they turned 16 in 2008, and 1993 onward belongs to the electropop era so in to sum this up here is my view on generational cohorts
1983-1986- Millenial Era teens(this cohort for the most part did not have the typical 2000s teen experience as they were too old to be part of the demographic for quintessential 2000s fads directed towards adolescence at the time they those fads became popular.

1987 transitional between Millenial and peak 2000s teen- people born this year while didn't have th typical quintessential teen experience and would most likely look at earlier 2000s fads culture as defining their teenhood, would certainly define some mid 2000s fads as defining their teenhood as well if you put into account they hit their 16th birthday in 2003 and didn't turn 18 until 2005.

1988-1991- Core 2000s teens(this cohort mostly embraced Punk Rock, snap/ringtone hip hop and emo/scene as adolescence. Movies they likely watched  at the time were Mean Girls, John Tucker must die, She's the man, Confessions of a teenage drama queen, You got served Tokyo Drift and Stomp the Yard.

1992- transitional between core 2000s teens and electropop era teens(92ers have many similarities to core 2000s era teens and electropop era teens and really can identify with both cohorts as they experienced many of the aforementioned core 2000s fads but also experienced many fads of the late 2008 plus era.

1993-1996(this is where the REAL cultural divide between peak 2000s teens and electropop era teens occurs, although 93ers may share some experiences with core 2000s teens. This cohort will likely look back on on very late 2000s and early 2010s fads as defining their teenhood things such as Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, and Taylor Swift.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/13/15 at 10:17 am


Well that's from a political aspect, I believe there are many other factors in determining what cohort of people belong together  outside of politics, for example, those born in 1991 turned 13 in 2004,the same year the movie "Mean Girls" came and that movie was directly targeted to girls were around ages of 12/13-16 am I right? If you are going by a pop cultural perspective the Mean Girls cohort could be anyone born from late 1987- mid 1992 about those born from 1993-1996 I see as being more the "I know who killed me" Twiglight cohort" . If we use the turning 16 years old rule and say your teen era belongs to any era in which one turns 16 in I think we can acurattely divide cohorts. So in that case I see 2003-2007 as the core 2000s Elmo era so you can say the cohort that best fits into that era are those born from 1987-1991. These people experienced punk, snap rap and emo culture as part of their peak adolescence. 1992 borns I would say are in the middle being that they turned 16 in 2008, and 1993 onward belongs to the electropop era so in to sum this up here is my view on generational cohorts
1983-1986- Millenial Era teens(this cohort for the most part did not have the typical 2000s teen experience as they were too old to be part of the demographic for quintessential 2000s fads directed towards adolescence at the time they those fads became popular.

1987 transitional between Millenial and peak 2000s teen- people born this year while didn't have th typical quintessential teen experience and would most likely look at earlier 2000s fads culture as defining their teenhood, would certainly define some mid 2000s fads as defining their teenhood as well if you put into account they hit their 16th birthday in 2003 and didn't turn 18 until 2005.

1988-1991- Core 2000s teens(this cohort mostly embraced Punk Rock, snap/ringtone hip hop and emo/scene as adolescence. Movies they likely watched  at the time were Mean Girls, John Tucker must die, She's the man, Confessions of a teenage drama queen, You got served Tokyo Drift and Stomp the Yard.

1992- transitional between core 2000s teens and electropop era teens(92ers have many similarities to core 2000s era teens and electropop era teens and really can identify with both cohorts as they experienced many of the aforementioned core 2000s fads but also experienced many fads of the late 2008 plus era.

1993-1996(this is where the REAL cultural divide between peak 2000s teens and electropop era teens occurs, although 93ers may share some experiences with core 2000s teens. This cohort will likely look back on on very late 2000s and early 2010s fads as defining their teenhood things such as Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, and Taylor Swift.


I would say this is VERY Accurate, Good Job!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/13/15 at 10:23 am


So you think Obama is the quintessential Y president?


I think so. Love him or hate him, he was the essence of what Millennials wanted for all of their dotted lives, Change from societal norms. I would say that Obama was the Gen Y version to how Gen Xers viewed Clinton, both were Democrats and were what made both generations more liberal.

I would say Bush was to Gen Y what Reagan was to Gen X, gave us conservative minded childhoods & or teenaged years in the 1980's or 2000's, only for those ideals to be crushed when Gen Xers and Gen Yers came of age in the liberal 1990's or 2010's

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 11/13/15 at 1:06 pm


1994 aren't really cushy between peak Y, they are actually more late Y being that they did not become legal until 2012. I think if you spent most of your adolescence and became legal in the 2000s decade, even if it's 2009, you have a legitimate claim to being part of the core Y cohort and maybe 2010 as well. Anything past that is late Y.
Well adolescence begins at 10/11 which means that yours started in 2001/02 and ended in 2008/09 while a 1994 baby had his/hers from 2004/05 to 2011/12. In that regard, both are core Yers; however, since there has been a dilemma of when Y begins/ends, we're not really sure which cohort or generation we're in.


Well that's from a political aspect, I believe there are many other factors in determining what cohort of people belong together  outside of politics, for example, those born in 1991 turned 13 in 2004,the same year the movie "Mean Girls" came and that movie was directly targeted to girls were around ages of 12/13-16 am I right? If you are going by a pop cultural perspective the Mean Girls cohort could be anyone born from late 1987- mid 1992 about those born from 1993-1996 I see as being more the "I know who killed me" Twiglight cohort" . If we use the turning 16 years old rule and say your teen era belongs to any era in which one turns 16 in I think we can acurattely divide cohorts. So in that case I see 2003-2007 as the core 2000s Elmo era so you can say the cohort that best fits into that era are those born from 1987-1991. These people experienced punk, snap rap and emo culture as part of their peak adolescence. 1992 borns I would say are in the middle being that they turned 16 in 2008, and 1993 onward belongs to the electropop era so in to sum this up here is my view on generational cohorts:

1983-1986- Millenial Era teens(this cohort for the most part did not have the typical 2000s teen experience as they were too old to be part of the demographic for quintessential 2000s fads directed towards adolescence at the time they those fads became popular.

1987 transitional between Millenial and peak 2000s teen- people born this year while didn't have th typical quintessential teen experience and would most likely look at earlier 2000s fads culture as defining their teenhood, would certainly define some mid 2000s fads as defining their teenhood as well if you put into account they hit their 16th birthday in 2003 and didn't turn 18 until 2005.

1988-1991- Core 2000s teens(this cohort mostly embraced Punk Rock, snap/ringtone hip hop and emo/scene as adolescence. Movies they likely watched  at the time were Mean Girls, John Tucker must die, She's the man, Confessions of a teenage drama queen, You got served Tokyo Drift and Stomp the Yard.

1992- transitional between core 2000s teens and electropop era teens(92ers have many similarities to core 2000s era teens and electropop era teens and really can identify with both cohorts as they experienced many of the aforementioned core 2000s fads but also experienced many fads of the late 2008 plus era.

1993-1996(this is where the REAL cultural divide between peak 2000s teens and electropop era teens occurs, although 93ers may share some experiences with core 2000s teens. This cohort will likely look back on on very late 2000s and early 2010s fads as defining their teenhood things such as Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, and Taylor Swift.
I agree with the chart although there would be more transitions within the eras. Now as for bold, you're correct that people my age would share some of the main 00s adolescence coming from the fact my freshman and the first half of sophomore year was different from the rest.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 11/13/15 at 4:17 pm


I would say this is VERY Accurate, Good Job!
Thanks. I just wanted to add that is also important to look at what time in the year a person was born in determining what cohort they belong in, like somebody born in late 1992 for example will fit more with the 1993-1996 born cohort as opposed to the 1988-1991 cohort.
Well adolescence begins at 10/11 which means that yours started in 2001/02 and ended in 2008/09 while a 1994 baby had his/hers from 2004/05 to 2011/12. In that regard, both are core Yers; however, since there has been a dilemma of when Y begins/ends, we're not really sure which cohort or generation we're in.
I agree with the chart although there would be more transitions within the eras. Now as for bold, you're correct that people my age would share some of the main 00s adolescence coming from the fact my freshman and the first half of sophomore year was different from the rest.
Yeah 93ers definitely share some similarities with the main 2000s teens, especially if you consider the fact that electropop wasn't even fully established in lat 2008 through the summer of 2009 as we still did not have the musical acts of Justin Bieber on the scene as yet at the time, so that gave 93ers at least 2 full high school years before a fully engrained electropop dominated pop culture.
Well adolescence begins at 10/11 which means that yours started in 2001/02 and ended in 2008/09 while a 1994 baby had his/hers from 2004/05 to 2011/12. In that regard, both are core Yers; however, since there has been a dilemma of when Y begins/ends, we're not really sure which cohort or generation we're in.
I agree with the chart although there would be more transitions within the eras. Now as for bold, you're correct that people my age would share some of the main 00s adolescence coming from the fact my freshman and the first half of sophomore year was different from the rest.
While many sources are still debating when Generation Y starts and ends I think that the end date is likely to extend further as time goes by. I have seen some sites note 1991 or even 1990 as the beginning of generation Z, which I believe is downright ridiculous, while most sites I've came across started gen z in 1995, which I still believe is a bit off being that 95ers nostalgize a lot of Millenial culture and am now seeing that on a broad scale they aren't all that different from those born in the late 80s. Als for staring dates for gen y, some people have started it with those born in 1976, which is another strong disagreement  that I hold because 1976 is a very gen X birth year with no Y traits all. All in all I am very sure that we are still part of gen y, I think it is safe to say that if you were born anywhere from the 80s to the first half of the 90s you are unquestionably part of Generation Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 11/13/15 at 4:46 pm


Thanks. I just wanted to add that is also important to look at what time in the year a person was born in determining what cohort they belong in, like somebody born in late 1992 for example will fit more with the 1993-1996 born cohort as opposed to the 1988-1991 cohort. Yeah 93ers definitely share some similarities with the main 2000s teens, especially if you consider the fact that electropop wasn't even fully established in lat 2008 through the summer of 2009 as we still did not have the musical acts of Justin Bieber on the scene as yet at the time, so that gave 93ers at least 2 full high school years before a fully engrained electropop dominated pop culture.While many sources are still debating when Generation Y starts and ends I think that the end date is likely to extend further as time goes by. I have seen some sites note 1991 or even 1990 as the beginning of generation Z, which I believe is downright ridiculous, while most sites I've came across started gen z in 1995, which I still believe is a bit off being that 95ers nostalgize a lot of Millenial culture and am now seeing that on a broad scale they aren't all that different from those born in the late 80s. Als for staring dates for gen y, some people have started it with those born in 1976, which is another strong disagreement  that I hold because 1976 is a very gen X birth year with no Y traits all. All in all I am very sure that we are still part of gen y, I think it is safe to say that if you were born anywhere from the 80s to the first half of the 90s you are unquestionably part of Generation Y.


There are some sites that states that Generation Z started as late as 2000 or sometime in the early 2000s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: bchris02 on 11/13/15 at 8:20 pm

It definitely seems like American culture shifts slightly every Presidential election.  The bigger shifts are when Presidents change and the biggest shifts are when the party in power changes.  The biggest cultural shifts over the past 50 years were in 1969, 1981, 1993, and 2009, all years the party in power changed.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 11/14/15 at 2:48 pm


I think so. Love him or hate him, he was the essence of what Millennials wanted for all of their dotted lives, Change from societal norms. I would say that Obama was the Gen Y version to how Gen Xers viewed Clinton, both were Democrats and were what made both generations more liberal.

I would say Bush was to Gen Y what Reagan was to Gen X, gave us conservative minded childhoods & or teenaged years in the 1980's or 2000's, only for those ideals to be crushed when Gen Xers and Gen Yers came of age in the liberal 1990's or 2010's


That reminds me of another thing that I've noticed. Since the 2012 election, I've been seeing some political commentators talking about the possibility of a political split between the first and second halves of Gen Y.

It seems as if Mitt Romney actually got a fairly decent percentage of the vote of the 1991-1994 cohort (those Yers that voted for the first time in 2012), and that has led to some speculation that later Yers might be slightly more Republican-leaning than the '80s born set. From what I've seen, the idea behind this is that Yers that came of age in 2000s are more likely to have a negative opinion of the Republicans due to coming of age during the turbulent Bush years, and thus be staunch Democrats, whereas Yers that came of age in the 2010's are more open to voting Republican due to thre controversies of the Obama administration. I don't really buy this myself, but it's something I've seen talked about on political shows. I'm skeptical about this theory, but I've definitely heard talk about it. We'll have to see how 1995ers-1998ers vote in 2016 to see if there really is any trend there.

I see a similar split with Gen X, although it's in reverse. Early Xers (those born before 1970) were more conservative due to having clear memories the disastrous Carter years, and tended to be stereotypical members of the so-called "Reagan Youth" (think Alex Keaton from "Family Ties"). Many 1964ers, for example, voted Republican during all three presidential elections in the '80s (Reagan in '80 and '84; Bush in '88). On the other hand, Xers born in the '70s tended to be more liberal on the big "Culture War" issues of the day (like gays in the military) and voted for Clinton twice in '92 and '96.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/14/15 at 4:12 pm


That reminds me of another thing that I've noticed. Since the 2012 election, I've been seeing some political commentators talking about the possibility of a political split between the first and second halves of Gen Y.

It seems as if Mitt Romney actually got a fairly decent percentage of the vote of the 1991-1994 cohort (those Yers that voted for the first time in 2012), and that has led to some speculation that later Yers might be slightly more Republican-leaning than the '80s born set. From what I've seen, the idea behind this is that Yers that came of age in 2000s are more likely to have a negative opinion of the Republicans due to coming of age during the turbulent Bush years, and thus be staunch Democrats, whereas Yers that came of age in the 2010's are more open to voting Republican due to thre controversies of the Obama administration. I don't really buy this myself, but it's something I've seen talked about on political shows. I'm skeptical about this theory, but I've definitely heard talk about it. We'll have to see how 1995ers-1998ers vote in 2016 to see if there really is any trend there.

I see a similar split with Gen X, although it's in reverse. Early Xers (those born before 1970) were more conservative due to having clear memories the disastrous Carter years, and tended to be stereotypical members of the so-called "Reagan Youth" (think Alex Keaton from "Family Ties"). Many 1964ers, for example, voted Republican during all three presidential elections in the '80s (Reagan in '80 and '84; Bush in '88). On the other hand, Xers born in the '70s tended to be more liberal on the big "Culture War" issues of the day (like gays in the military) and voted for Clinton twice in '92 and '96.


1st half Generation Y (George Bush)

2000 Election: 1979-1982

2004 Election: 1983-1986


2nd half Generation Y (Barack Obama)

2008 Election: 1987-1990

2012 Election: 1991-1994


So with a new president getting elected next year, with 1995-1998 born's next on the list, could that be the start of Z, since it's a new president, plus with the majority of sources starting Generation Z in 1995 or 1996, that would lineup perfectly. Although, I could be the 1979-1982 group being the X/Y cusp boundary, kinda like how the 1995-1998 group is the Y/Z cusp boundary.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 11/14/15 at 5:09 pm


That reminds me of another thing that I've noticed. Since the 2012 election, I've been seeing some political commentators talking about the possibility of a political split between the first and second halves of Gen Y.

It seems as if Mitt Romney actually got a fairly decent percentage of the vote of the 1991-1994 cohort (those Yers that voted for the first time in 2012), and that has led to some speculation that later Yers might be slightly more Republican-leaning than the '80s born set. From what I've seen, the idea behind this is that Yers that came of age in 2000s are more likely to have a negative opinion of the Republicans due to coming of age during the turbulent Bush years, and thus be staunch Democrats, whereas Yers that came of age in the 2010's are more open to voting Republican due to thre controversies of the Obama administration. I don't really buy this myself, but it's something I've seen talked about on political shows. I'm skeptical about this theory, but I've definitely heard talk about it. We'll have to see how 1995ers-1998ers vote in 2016 to see if there really is any trend there.

I see a similar split with Gen X, although it's in reverse. Early Xers (those born before 1970) were more conservative due to having clear memories the disastrous Carter years, and tended to be stereotypical members of the so-called "Reagan Youth" (think Alex Keaton from "Family Ties"). Many 1964ers, for example, voted Republican during all three presidential elections in the '80s (Reagan in '80 and '84; Bush in '88). On the other hand, Xers born in the '70s tended to be more liberal on the big "Culture War" issues of the day (like gays in the military) and voted for Clinton twice in '92 and '96.
Those born in 1991 came of age in the 2000s not the 2010s, and I just wanted to ask you where exactly did you get this information that those born in 1991 favored Republicans more than Democrats for the first election?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 11/14/15 at 7:28 pm


Those born in 1991 came of age in the 2000s not the 2010s, and I just wanted to ask you where exactly did you get this information that those born in 1991 favored Republicans more than Democrats for the first election?


Unfortunately, I've never been able to find any exit poll data that breaks down the 2012 election by individual birth years, but there does appear to be some data that Yers voting for the first time in '12 were less supportive of Obama than Yers that voted for the first time in '08. There's a really good discussion about this topic that can be read here:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=196521.0

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that 1991ers individually slanted more Republican, just that Yers that voted for the first time in 2012 (the 1991-1994 cohort) apparently voted less Democratic as a group than Yers old enough to vote for Obama in 2008. People born in 1991 did come of age in the 2000's, and would have a very clear recollection of the Bush years, so they probably voted more pro-Obama than 1994ers would have, for example.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Katluver on 11/15/15 at 3:53 pm

My take on the generations:

1920-1929:  GI generation (growing up during the Depression, WW2, "old glam" celebrities stars born in this time period like MM, Audrey Hepburn, Jackie...)

1930-1944:  peak of the Silent Generation (teens of the 50s, rock'n'roll)
1941-1944: late Silent Generation  (teens of the 50s but many participated in the hippie movement)

1945-1957: Baby Boomers  (children of the 50s, first generation to grow up with television, Beatles, 60s Revolution)
1945-1949: early Baby Boomers (graduated high school in the 60s, a little more conservative than the younger Boomers, involved with Kennedy mania, young girls wanting to be Jackie, Beatles, the Graduate fighting in Vietnam)
1950-1953: hardcore Boomers (heavily involved in the 60s counterculture, Beatles, Vietnam, Woodstock, hippies)
1954-1957: late Boomers (a little bit sheltered from Vietnam, the Monkees, graduated high school in the 70s)

1958-1964: Jones generation  aka Boomer/X cusp (the Brady Bunch, teens of the 70s---watch "That 70s Show" "Dazed&Confused", Yuppies)

1965-1979: Generation X (cynicism, slackers, grunge, Nirvana, Beavis & Butthead, BH 90210, exposed to video games during childhood or adolescence)
1965-1969: early Generation X (Brat Pack, 80s teens, Brook Shields' Calvins, Leif Garrett, Fast Times at Ridgemont High)
1970-1974: hardcore X (MTV, 80s teens, Reality Bites, John Hughes films, Winona Ryder)
1975-1979: late Generation X (grew up with PCs along with a few answering machines, Saved By the Bell, old-school Degrassi, NKOTB, grew up with many of the same toys as X/Y cuspers---CPK, CareBears, MLP, JEM...)

1980-1984: X/Y cuspers (children of classic 80s toys, was not introduced to the Internet until tween/adolescent years, Daria, Columbine, American Pie, Dawson's Creek, Smash Mouth, Saved By the Bell, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera)

1985-1995: Generation Y (grew up with the Internet, technology driven, Facebook, Olsen twins, new Disney films, optimistic, somewhat self-absorbed, Obama, remembers 9/11)
1985-1986: early Generation Y (exposed to some 80s fads, likes some grunge music, exposed to the Internet during the tween years)
1987-1992: hardcore Generation Y (exposed to the Internet at an early age, Barney, Degrassi the New Generation, 90210)
1993-1995: late Generation Y (grew up with cell phones, Tickle Me Elmo doll, too young to remember the death of Princess Diana)

1996-1998: Y/Z cusp (too young to remember the Millennium hype, born into technology)

1999-?: Generation Z (school shootings, Terrorism...)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/15/15 at 7:09 pm


1993-1995: late Generation Y (grew up with cell phones, Tickle Me Elmo doll, too young to remember the death of Princess Diana, too young to understand 9/11)

1996-1998: Y/Z cusp (too young to remember the Millennium hype, born into technology, first ones to have their baby photos posted on Facebook by their parents)


I had a Tickle Me Elmo doll as a baby. Me and my friends had flip phones throughout middle school. Also, what's your definition of "Millennium hype"? I can remember 2001 & 2002 very clearly BTW. 1st half of 2003 was still millennial era IMO. Baby photos posted on Facebook by parents, now what does that have to do with any generational stuff when Facebook didn't come out until 2004? Lastly, if 1996-1997 born's were born straight into technology, then the same could be said about 1994-1995 born's if you're referring to the internet boom that occurred in the mid to late 90's.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 11/15/15 at 7:14 pm


I had a Tickle Me Elmo doll as a baby. Me and my friends had flip phones throughout middle school. Also, what's your definition of "Millennium hype"? I can remember 2001 & 2002 very clearly BTW. 1st half of 2003 was still millennial era IMO. Baby photos posted on Facebook by parents, now what does that have to do with any generational stuff when Facebook didn't come out until 2004? Lastly, if 1996-1997 born's were born straight into technology, then the same could be said about 1994-1995 born's if you're referring to the internet boom that occurred in the mid to late 90's.


Not to mention that Facebook wasn't even available to the general public until at least 2006.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 11/15/15 at 7:28 pm


My take on the generations:

1920-1929:  GI generation (growing up during the Depression, WW2, "old glam" celebrities stars born in this time period like MM, Audrey Hepburn, Jackie...)

1930-1944:  peak of the Silent Generation (teens of the 50s, rock'n'roll)
1941-1944: late Silent Generation  (teens of the 50s but many participated in the hippie movement)

1945-1957: Baby Boomers  (children of the 50s, first generation to grow up with television, Beatles, 60s Revolution)
1945-1949: early Baby Boomers (graduated high school in the 60s, a little more conservative than the younger Boomers, involved with Kennedy mania, young girls wanting to be Jackie, Beatles, the Graduate fighting in Vietnam)
1950-1953: hardcore Boomers (heavily involved in the 60s counterculture, Beatles, Vietnam, Woodstock, hippies)
1954-1957: late Boomers (a little bit sheltered from Vietnam, the Monkees, graduated high school in the 70s)

1958-1964: Jones generation  aka Boomer/X cusp (the Brady Bunch, teens of the 70s---watch "That 70s Show" "Dazed&Confused", Yuppies)

1965-1979: Generation X (cynicism, slackers, grunge, Nirvana, Beavis & Butthead, BH 90210, exposed to video games during childhood or adolescence)
1965-1969: early Generation X (Brat Pack, 80s teens, Brook Shields' Calvins, Leif Garrett, Fast Times at Ridgemont High)
1970-1974: hardcore X (MTV, 80s teens, Reality Bites, John Hughes films, Winona Ryder)
1975-1979: late Generation X (grew up with PCs along with a few answering machines, Saved By the Bell, old-school Degrassi, NKOTB, grew up with many of the same toys as X/Y cuspers---CPK, CareBears, MLP, JEM...)

1980-1984: X/Y cuspers (children of classic 80s toys, was not introduced to the Internet until tween/adolescent years, Daria, Columbine, American Pie, Dawson's Creek, Smash Mouth, Saved By the Bell, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera)

1985-1995: Generation Y (grew up with the Internet, technology driven, Facebook, Olsen twins, new Disney films, optimistic, somewhat self-absorbed, remembers 9/11)
1985-1986: early Generation Y (exposed to some 80s fads, likes some grunge music, exposed to the Internet during the tween years)
1987-1992: hardcore Generation Y (exposed to the Internet at an early age, Barney, Degrassi the New Generation, 90210)
1993-1995: late Generation Y (grew up with cell phones, Tickle Me Elmo doll, too young to remember the death of Princess Diana, too young to understand 9/11)

1996-1998: Y/Z cusp (too young to remember the Millennium hype, born into technology, first ones to have their baby photos posted on Facebook by their parents)

1999-?: Generation Z (born in the Digital Age, Terrorism...)


If those born in 1993 were too young to understand 9/11, then those born in 1992 would also be too young to understand. I wish people would stop acting like there's a huge difference between someone born in 1992 and someone born in 1993. 1992-1995 for late Y would be more accurate. Or maybe split up 1992 into halves.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek on 11/15/15 at 8:11 pm


I had a Tickle Me Elmo doll as a baby. Me and my friends had flip phones throughout middle school. Also, what's your definition of "Millennium hype"? I can remember 2001 & 2002 very clearly BTW. 1st half of 2003 was still millennial era IMO. Baby photos posted on Facebook by parents, now what does that have to do with any generational stuff when Facebook didn't come out until 2004? Lastly, if 1996-1997 born's were born straight into technology, then the same could be said about 1994-1995 born's if you're referring to the internet boom that occurred in the mid to late 90's.

"Millennium hype" means Y2K hype.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 11/15/15 at 8:18 pm


"Millennium hype" means Y2K hype.


I know that millennial & Y2K are basically the same thing, but it's the word "hype" that I'm confused about. Not like "hyped up" in general, but how do you use the word "hype" in millennial or Y2K?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek on 11/15/15 at 8:31 pm


I know that millennial & Y2K are basically the same thing, but it's the word "hype" that I'm confused about. Not like "hyped up" in general, but how do you use the word "hype" in millennial or Y2K?

In this case, "hype" means the anticipation people had for the future and the new millennium, as well as the paranoia over the Y2K computer bug.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/16/15 at 7:11 am


My take on the generations:

1920-1929:  GI generation (growing up during the Depression, WW2, "old glam" celebrities stars born in this time period like MM, Audrey Hepburn, Jackie...)

1930-1944:  peak of the Silent Generation (teens of the 50s, rock'n'roll)
1941-1944: late Silent Generation  (teens of the 50s but many participated in the hippie movement)

1945-1957: Baby Boomers  (children of the 50s, first generation to grow up with television, Beatles, 60s Revolution)
1945-1949: early Baby Boomers (graduated high school in the 60s, a little more conservative than the younger Boomers, involved with Kennedy mania, young girls wanting to be Jackie, Beatles, the Graduate fighting in Vietnam)
1950-1953: hardcore Boomers (heavily involved in the 60s counterculture, Beatles, Vietnam, Woodstock, hippies)
1954-1957: late Boomers (a little bit sheltered from Vietnam, the Monkees, graduated high school in the 70s)

1958-1964: Jones generation  aka Boomer/X cusp (the Brady Bunch, teens of the 70s---watch "That 70s Show" "Dazed&Confused", Yuppies)

1965-1979: Generation X (cynicism, slackers, grunge, Nirvana, Beavis & Butthead, BH 90210, exposed to video games during childhood or adolescence)
1965-1969: early Generation X (Brat Pack, 80s teens, Brook Shields' Calvins, Leif Garrett, Fast Times at Ridgemont High)
1970-1974: hardcore X (MTV, 80s teens, Reality Bites, John Hughes films, Winona Ryder)
1975-1979: late Generation X (grew up with PCs along with a few answering machines, Saved By the Bell, old-school Degrassi, NKOTB, grew up with many of the same toys as X/Y cuspers---CPK, CareBears, MLP, JEM...)

1980-1984: X/Y cuspers (children of classic 80s toys, was not introduced to the Internet until tween/adolescent years, Daria, Columbine, American Pie, Dawson's Creek, Smash Mouth, Saved By the Bell, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera)

1985-1995: Generation Y (grew up with the Internet, technology driven, Facebook, Olsen twins, new Disney films, optimistic, somewhat self-absorbed, Obama, remembers 9/11)
1985-1986: early Generation Y (exposed to some 80s fads, likes some grunge music, exposed to the Internet during the tween years)
1987-1992: hardcore Generation Y (exposed to the Internet at an early age, Barney, Degrassi the New Generation, 90210)
1993-1995: late Generation Y (grew up with cell phones, Tickle Me Elmo doll, too young to remember the death of Princess Diana)

1996-1998: Y/Z cusp (too young to remember the Millennium hype, born into technology)

1999-?: Generation Z (school shootings, Terrorism...)


How could people from 1996-1998 have baby photos posted on Facebook if Facebook didn't even exist until we were kids?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 11/16/15 at 7:14 am


In this case, "hype" means the anticipation people had for the future and the new millennium, as well as the paranoia over the Y2K computer bug.


I actually do have a vague recollection of the Y2K paranoia along with the optimism of getting to the new millennium, and a vivid recollection of a pre 9/11 world (along with entering K-12 school days before the event) so I don't understand how that makes a 95er and a 96er that different in the grand scheme of things  ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 11/16/15 at 6:02 pm


Yeah 93ers definitely share some similarities with the main 2000s teens, especially if you consider the fact that electropop wasn't even fully established in lat 2008 through the summer of 2009 as we still did not have the musical acts of Justin Bieber on the scene as yet at the time, so that gave 93ers at least 2 full high school years before a fully engrained electropop dominated pop culture.

While many sources are still debating when Generation Y starts and ends I think that the end date is likely to extend further as time goes by. I have seen some sites note 1991 or even 1990 as the beginning of generation Z, which I believe is downright ridiculous, while most sites I've came across started gen z in 1995, which I still believe is a bit off being that 95ers nostalgize a lot of Millenial culture and am now seeing that on a broad scale they aren't all that different from those born in the late 80s. Als for staring dates for gen y, some people have started it with those born in 1976, which is another strong disagreement  that I hold because 1976 is a very gen X birth year with no Y traits all. All in all I am very sure that we are still part of gen y, I think it is safe to say that if you were born anywhere from the 80s to the first half of the 90s you are unquestionably part of Generation Y.


Not only that. During my sophomore year, there were popular genres I still heard on the radio such as snap/ringtone rap, emo rock, R&B and non-electro pop music. Yes, electro-pop was already there, but it wasn't the only one and like you said, it wasn't in full effect until Summer 2009. In addition, certain artists were still relevant like Soulja Boy, Britney Spears, Akon, Pitbull and Beyonce during that same year. And yeah, JB was not popular until 2010 as no one in my grad class even heard of him (even the girls) at the time.

I agree. I see in the end both of us and everyone our age range will be considered part of the same generation and it could be seen as 1981 to 2000 in the future.


If those born in 1993 were too young to understand 9/11, then those born in 1992 would also be too young to understand. I wish people would stop acting like there's a huge difference between someone born in 1992 and someone born in 1993. 1992-1995 for late Y would be more accurate. Or maybe split up 1992 into halves.


This. I have many friends who were born in 1992 and I definitely don't see a difference between me and them at all. In fact, we all basically grew up with the same things along with those born in 1994/95.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 11/16/15 at 6:36 pm


Not only that. During my sophomore year, there were popular genres I still heard on the radio such as snap/ringtone rap, emo rock, R&B and non-electro pop music. Yes, electro-pop was already there, but it wasn't the only one and like you said, it wasn't in full effect until Summer 2009. In addition, certain artists were still relevant like Soulja Boy, Britney Spears, Akon, Pitbull and Beyonce during that same year. And yeah, JB was not popular until 2010 as no one in my grad class even heard of him (even the girls) at the time.

I agree. I see in the end both of us and everyone our age range will be considered part of the same generation and it could be seen as 1981 to 2000 in the future.

This. I have many friends who were born in 1992 and I definitely don't see a difference between me and them at all. In fact, we all basically grew up with the same things along with those born in 1994/95.

This.


Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/26/16 at 6:46 pm

Here is an updated post!



Silent Generation (aka the Hard Timers): b. 1927-1945

Age 71+

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2e/01/a8/2e01a845b28e073538d79fe2ce918068.jpg

the Depression, WWII, & McCarthy Era Children (30's, 40's, & early 50's)
http://dramaresource.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/evacuees-station.jpg
WLLSqpYyPD8nauLgZISozslouBM-Mix7sq4fXllxQa1Y

the Nifty, Leave It To Beaver, & Rock n Roll Era Teens & Young Adults
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b9/9c/4d/b99c4d396b929ec832c447b98dbda0ec.jpg
QT4LJxBBaF02s4slliAtQUR4GLAKEjU4wQadw2rFiaJc

Ultimate Silent: Elvis Presley http://www.showbi.ru/upload/2014/09/02/20140902120040-7a0cdd8b.jpg






Baby Boomer Generation (aka the Revolutionaries): b. 1946-1964


Age 52-70

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-um51fQcNYyI/Tcg9c7GOLEI/AAAAAAAAAAM/6zWVXyg2EHU/s1600/vietnam_protest_rs.jpg

the Mickey Mouse Club, Looney Tunes, & Post WWII Era Children (Eisenhower, JFK, & LBJ; 1953-1969)
http://www.history.com/s3static/video-thumbnails/AETN-History_VMS/21/152/history_eisenhower_on_the_middle_east_speech_still_624x352.jpghttps://edwardrynearson.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/jfk1.jpghttp://i.ytimg.com/vi/KiFGhe-N2r0/hqdefault.jpghttp://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the_flintstones-show.jpghttp://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTgxMDQ5MjM5OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNzg4MTkwMzE@._V1_SY317_CR104,0,214,317_AL_.jpghttp://stuffsucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/LooneyTunesLogo.jpg
http://www.fashion-era.com/images/Wedding/1950s_weddings/1958_wedd_barb_children.jpg
ckjIbT1bUosPFbCGT_AWBI2s13X66BFd8x4C_lUy58Rw

the Hippie, Beatlemania, and Disco Era Teens and Young Adults
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mJhtf0fqf7s/TAvOVvynAbI/AAAAAAAAEBw/KkZuecLxRmE/s1600/1720031046_b6a771773d_b.jpghttp://images1.villagevoice.com/imager/u/original/6373001/f33bcc7ea1fcdb9f4f33c6e0f2c6f4ac.jpg
594WLzzb3JII_izvAbhExYho7796-au8U46_yYR6tGOI

Ultimate Baby Boomer: Billy Joel http://www.popspotsnyc.com/billy_joel_piano_man/Billy-Joel-72.jpg






Generation X (aka the MTV Generation): b. 1965-1981


Age 35-51

http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/90210.jpg

the School House Rock, Muppets, & Conservative Era Children (Nixon, Ford, Carter, & Reagan; 1969-1989)
https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/events/centennials/nixon/images/rn-2-m.jpghttps://www.randomlists.com/img/people/gerald_ford.jpghttp://fair.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Jimmy_Carter_cropped.jpghttp://www.redstate.com/uploads/2015/07/gty_ronald_reagan_birthday_memorial_lpl_130206_wmain.jpghttp://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/inspectorgadget/images/8/82/Inspector-gadget.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120108114156http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/11/23/1322072222667/The-Muppet-Show-008.jpghttp://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/40/857835-smurfs_l.jpghttp://www.arcade-museum.com/images/118/118124214343.pngFqGV76RcL50
http://everythingchangesbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/70s-kids.jpg
mrAsdwzbi2YGhVk49a7c6gFFroMQlKiaggc8mVs2H4Vc

the New Jack Swing, Gangsta Rap, & Grunge Era Teens & Young Adults
https://s3.amazonaws.com/tribeca_cms_production/uploads/slide/image/55c8b86161ae403706000001/full_nwa-2.jpghttps://streetwalkers101.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tumblr_lfyhsceqlg1qzeipmo1_500.jpg
iqu132vTl5Y79fzeNUqQbQcpGbzYlnz7cPIb6AZdTr-A

Ultimate Gen Xer: Kurt Cobain http://static.spin.com/files/field/image/090218-kurt-cobain-1.jpg





Millennial Generation (aka the Facebook Generation): b. 1982-2000


Age 16-34

https://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/pretty-little-liars-spring-finale-a-reveal-season-6-spoilers-upcoming-abcfamily-ftr.jpg?w=600&h=375&crop=1

the Power Rangers, Pokemon, & NAFTA Era Children (Bush 41', Clinton, & Bush 43'; 1989-2009)
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/article30865892.ece/ALTERNATES/h342/PANews_P-1b29ee0d-8859-4dff-8ec4-25ef0c7ea12f_I1.jpghttp://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/media/uploads/special_features/photo_gallery/clinton_gallery_01.jpghttp://www.georgewbushlibrary.smu.edu/~/media/GWBL/Images/Galleries/Lithography/P25695-23.ashxhttp://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/styles/tout_image_612x380/public/i/2014/08/13/Power-Rangers.jpg?itok=cUB7M5srhttp://www.neighborhoodarchive.com/images/misc/cameos/rugrats/0001.jpghttp://25.media.tumblr.com/7387133dcf6fcd9df8cb1e7b6eaba000/tumblr_mr3k9cBrTb1sxl7y7o1_500.gifhttps://cdn02.nintendo-europe.com/media/images/03_teaser_module_1_square/games_3/virtual_console_wii_u_2/TM_WiiUVC_SuperMarioBros3.pngxx97nVGhZ4E
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a7/b1/85/a7b18596a0f4633e1e4d3b8b8f3cd29a.jpg
E4SB9PkCnX0lhVR9LrdbMcQiZT1bdGllMZvYvqQuqhiI

the Pop Punk, Emo, & Hipster Era Teens & Young Adults
http://www.womanlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/college-kid.jpghttps://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-01/1/13/enhanced/webdr01/enhanced-29588-1420137932-1.jpg
9Ht5RZpzPqwbESGLojNYSoC-u5WLJ9Yk4SkTt9k4Y-a8

Ultimate Millennial (so far): Taylor Swift http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/news/150105/taylor-swift-768.jpg






Homeland Generation (aka the Smartphone Generation): b. 2001-Present


Age 0-15

http://www.kidtection.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/tweens-2.jpg

the Great Recession, Angry Birds, & Gay Marriage Era Children (Obama; 2009-Present)

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2011/cbb/blog/110718/kids-ipad-440.jpg
StTqXEQ2l-Y_F547etZKeM
1U2DKKqxHgEfVR4E6Q6u5g



This is just my opinion though, but I think its fairly accurate though!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 01/27/16 at 5:34 pm

I never gave this subject much importance before since I usually do not label people.


What happens if a X- person marries a Y person? As is my case...or will be. Then our kids will be called Z? Can someone correct me if I'm wrong? :(


Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/27/16 at 6:36 pm


I never gave this subject much importance before since I usually do not label people.


What happens if a X- person marries a Y person? As is my case...or will be. Then our kids will be called Z? Can someone correct me if I'm wrong? :(


Since you was born in 1980, your very borderline. Many would consider you the tail end of X while many others would consider you the very start of Y. In all honesty its what you personally relate with better, as those from the late 70's/early 80's are in a weird cuspy zone between generations. Also there's no law that you have to marry someone of your own generation (as long as their not underage ;D) so don't fret it.

Generation Z is harder to pin point since there is still not a clear starting and ending point for the generation. Most sources start it as early as the mid 90's or as late as the mid 00's.

However IMO, the first true Z Year would probably be 2001, which makes sense because not only would they be the first to have been born in the 21st century, but also would've spent most of their childhood in the late 00's during the Great Recession. They also would likely have Gen X Parents, since most sources start Gen X in the Mid-60's, that would make the oldest Xer in their mid 30's when they were born, so a reasonable age to have a child (regardless if its their first, last, or middle).

People my age on the contrary would have sort of a mixture of baby boomer and or Xer parents. On average its typically Younger Baby Boomers (b. 1959-1964) or Older Gen Xers (b. 1965-1970). For instance, if someone my age had parents who were in their early-mid 30's when they were born then that would mean their parent had to have born between 1959-1966, aka the epitome of Generation Jones (a term to apply those born between Baby Boomers & Gen Xers). I don't know many people my age with parents born post 1970, aka the core of Gen X. However, someone from the early 00's having parents born in the early 70's, wouldn't be that far fetched.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 01/27/16 at 6:55 pm


Since you was born in 1980, your very borderline. Many would consider you the tail end of X while many others would consider you the very start of Y. In all honesty its what you personally relate with better, as those from the late 70's/early 80's are in a weird cuspy zone between generations. Also there's no law that you have to marry someone of your own generation (as long as their not underage ;D) so don't fret it.

Generation Z is harder to pin point since there is still not a clear starting and ending point for the generation. Most sources start it as early as the mid 90's or as late as the mid 00's.

However IMO, the first true Z Year would probably be 2001, which makes sense because not only would they be the first to have been born in the 21st century, but also would've spent most of their childhood in the late 00's during the Great Recession. They also would likely have Gen X Parents, since most sources start Gen X in the Mid-60's, that would make the oldest Xer in their mid 30's when they were born, so a reasonable age to have a child (regardless if its their first, last, or middle).

People my age on the contrary would have sort of a mixture of baby boomer and or Xer parents. On average its typically Younger Baby Boomers (b. 1959-1964) or Older Gen Xers (b. 1965-1970). For instance, if someone my age had parents who were in their early-mid 30's when they were born then that would mean their parent had to have born between 1959-1966, aka the epitome of Generation Jones (a term to apply those born between Baby Boomers & Gen Xers). I don't know many people my age with parents born post 1970, aka the core of Gen X. However, someone from the early 00's having parents born in the early 70's, wouldn't be that far fetched.



Sorry for my asking this, but what happens after Z, they begin with A? :-\\

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 01/27/16 at 6:57 pm



Sorry for my asking this, but what happens after Z, they begin with A? :-\\


Generation A is centuries ago. The next generation after Z would have to be named as Generation AA, if we keep using letters for generations.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 01/27/16 at 7:13 pm


Generation A is centuries ago. The next generation after Z would have to be named as Generation AA, if we keep using letters for generations.


Makes sense....so my kids will be AAs, awesome.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/27/16 at 7:25 pm



Sorry for my asking this, but what happens after Z, they begin with A? :-\\


I think the next name would be Alpha. Once again, your going to get various different sources on when it begins. The earliest I've seen it begin was 2010, however since they are VERY young, its still too early to pin point where specifically. Heck some may argue that children born today are still Gen Z.

However, to give you a better understanding of generations on average:

The G.I Generation (b. 1901-1924) raised the Baby Boomers (b. 1946-1964)

The Silent Generation (b. 1925-1945) raised Generation X (b. 1965-1981)

The Baby Boomers (b. 1946-1964) raised Millennials (b. early 80's-mid/late 90's)

Generation X (b. 1965-1981) are raising Homelanders (b. late 90's/early 00's-2010's)

Millennials (b. 1980's & 90's) are now starting to raise Generation Alpha (b. 2010's and after, or 2020's and after depending on source)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 01/27/16 at 8:03 pm


I think the next name would be Alpha. Once again, your going to get various different sources on when it begins. The earliest I've seen it begin was 2010, however since they are VERY young, its still too early to pin point where specifically. Heck some may argue that children born today are still Gen Z.

However, to give you a better understanding of generations on average:

The G.I Generation (b. 1901-1924) raised the Baby Boomers (b. 1946-1964)

The Silent Generation (b. 1925-1945) raised Generation X (b. 1965-1981)

The Baby Boomers (b. 1946-1964) raised Millennials (b. early 80's-mid/late 90's)

Generation X (b. 1965-1981) are raising Homelanders (b. late 90's/early 00's-2010's)

Millennials (b. 1980's & 90's) are now starting to raise Generation Alpha (b. 2010's and after, or 2020's and after depending on source)


I'm an X-er and my significant other is Millennial. Which children will we raise after 2017?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/27/16 at 8:19 pm


I'm an X-er and my significant other is Millennial. Which children will we raise after 2017?


Its a toughie because no one knows for sure right now. However if I were to make a prediction it would probably be VERY Late Zers or (and this might be more plausible) Early Alpha'ers.

We'll have to how that plays out though ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/27/16 at 10:46 pm


I think the next name would be Alpha. Once again, your going to get various different sources on when it begins. The earliest I've seen it begin was 2010, however since they are VERY young, its still too early to pin point where specifically. Heck some may argue that children born today are still Gen Z.

However, to give you a better understanding of generations on average:

The G.I Generation (b. 1901-1924) raised the Baby Boomers (b. 1946-1964)

The Silent Generation (b. 1925-1945) raised Generation X (b. 1965-1981)

The Baby Boomers (b. 1946-1964) raised Millennials (b. early 80's-mid/late 90's)

Generation X (b. 1965-1981) are raising Homelanders (b. late 90's/early 00's-2010's)

Millennials (b. 1980's & 90's) are now starting to raise Generation Alpha (b. 2010's and after, or 2020's and after depending on source)

Dad(1959) and Mom(1965), a late boomer and one at the VERY beginning of Gen X raised me. Basically Generation Jones raised me! ;D 
Also the silent generation and greatest generation raised me too, because of my grandparents and great grandparents.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/27/16 at 11:07 pm


Makes sense....so my kids will be AAs, awesome.


My kids are gonna be AAA, watch out.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/28/16 at 11:12 am


My kids are gonna be AAA, watch out.


Lol, what's scary is that I already know a few guys my age who are engaged :o Especially since most sources are divided amongst calling me tail end Gen Y or very early Gen Z, then what would that make the kids that I eventually have, Generation Triple A ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/28/16 at 11:32 am


Lol, what's scary is that I already know a few guys my age who are engaged :o Especially since most sources are divided amongst calling me tail end Gen Y or very early Gen Z, then what would that make the kids that I eventually have, Generation Triple A ;D


Some people in my old high school class are already married and some pregnant!  :o

Like, slow down guys!

I want to have kids before my 30s though. My mom had me when she was 26 and now I'm leaving the house before she hits 50. That sounds damn awesome from her perspective.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/28/16 at 11:58 am


Some people in my old high school class are already married and some pregnant!  :o

Like, slow down guys!

I want to have kids before my 30s though. My mom had me when she was 26 and now I'm leaving the house before she hits 50. That sounds damn awesome from her perspective.


Lol I know a few girls my age who are preganate as well and are either married or engaged. Its crazy to think about it especially since I grew up with them :(

I agree, that its best to wait to have kids when you are financially independent. That could mean 26 or 39, whatever and whenever depending on person to person. I'm the youngest in my immediate family, so my parents were naturally a little older, being 38 and 46 when I was born. Most of my friends my age seemed to have parents part of Generation Jones, aka born late 50's/early-mid 60's.

I notice though that most 80's & 90's babies in the U.S seem to be putting off getting married and or having kids and such much later, is this trend similar in Canada?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/28/16 at 12:55 pm


Lol, what's scary is that I already know a few guys my age who are engaged :o Especially since most sources are divided amongst calling me tail end Gen Y or very early Gen Z, then what would that make the kids that I eventually have, Generation Triple A ;D


It's funny you mentioned this, because I have conflicting feelings about my friends being engaged. On one hand, I feel like a total loser, since I've never had a girlfriend. On the other hand, I'm glad I'm not engaged yet. I enjoy being young and free, and being able to do what I want with my life. Personally, I don't want to get engaged/married, until at least my late 20s/early 30s. However I do want to start casually dating, pretty soon. Just nothing serious.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/28/16 at 12:56 pm


Some people in my old high school class are already married and some pregnant!  :o

Like, slow down guys!

I want to have kids before my 30s though. My mom had me when she was 26 and now I'm leaving the house before she hits 50. That sounds damn awesome from her perspective.


Same here, it's pretty trippy.

It does seem awesome, though I don't think I'd be ready to have kids at 26. But hey, different things work for different people.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/28/16 at 1:10 pm


Dad(1959) and Mom(1965), a late boomer and one at the VERY beginning of Gen X raised me. Basically Generation Jones raised me! ;D 
Also the silent generation and greatest generation raised me too, because of my grandparents and great grandparents.


Yeah it seems that for mid 90's babies we typically have either young Boomer Parents, Old Gen X Parents, or a mixture of the two. Heck my step dad (who I live with now) was born in the early 60's, so him and my mom are around the same age.

Also my grandparents on my mom's side I unfortunately never met, but the ones on my father's side lived upto their early 80's. They were born in the early-mid 20's

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/28/16 at 1:13 pm


It's funny you mentioned this, because I have conflicting feelings about my friends being engaged. On one hand, I feel like a total loser, since I've never had a girlfriend. On the other hand, I'm glad I'm not engaged yet. I enjoy being young and free, and being able to do what I want with my life. Personally, I don't want to get engaged/married, until at least my late 20s/early 30s. However I do want to start casually dating, pretty soon. Just nothing serious.


Don't worry man I'm sure you'll find someone out there who loves you! I agree, its best to wait until your financially independent to start having serious relationships. I personally don't want to get married until my late 20's and I would personally want to have my first kid in my early 30's; but anything could change within 10 years, so we just have to take things one step at a time!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 01/28/16 at 4:01 pm

I was born in 1996, but my parents are both Gen X (both being born in 1968 and 1971) and were in their 20s at the time I was born. 1996 seems to be early for a Millennial child born to Gen X parents.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/28/16 at 4:08 pm


I think the next name would be Alpha. Once again, your going to get various different sources on when it begins. The earliest I've seen it begin was 2010, however since they are VERY young, its still too early to pin point where specifically. Heck some may argue that children born today are still Gen Z.

However, to give you a better understanding of generations on average:

The G.I Generation (b. 1901-1924) raised the Baby Boomers (b. 1946-1964)

The Silent Generation (b. 1925-1945) raised Generation X (b. 1965-1981)

The Baby Boomers (b. 1946-1964) raised Millennials (b. early 80's-mid/late 90's)

Generation X (b. 1965-1981) are raising Homelanders (b. late 90's/early 00's-2010's)

Millennials (b. 1980's & 90's) are now starting to raise Generation Alpha (b. 2010's and after, or 2020's and after depending on source)


I am Generation X.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/28/16 at 4:44 pm


I was born in 1996, but my parents are both Gen X (both being born in 1968 and 1971) and were in their 20s at the time I was born. 1996 seems to be early for a Millennial child born to Gen X parents.


It depends on what wave. For instance Mqg's parents were born in 66' and 68' and Eazy's mom was from 65'. I think it would be weird if you were to have say both your parents born in the 70's, as they would've been in their 20's when we were born and the whole 'wait till I'm in my 30's to have kids' mindset was already well established in the 90's.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/28/16 at 4:54 pm


Lol I know a few girls my age who are preganate as well and are either married or engaged. Its crazy to think about it especially since I grew up with them :(

I agree, that its best to wait to have kids when you are financially independent. That could mean 26 or 39, whatever and whenever depending on person to person. I'm the youngest in my immediate family, so my parents were naturally a little older, being 38 and 46 when I was born. Most of my friends my age seemed to have parents part of Generation Jones, aka born late 50's/early-mid 60's.

I notice though that most 80's & 90's babies in the U.S seem to be putting off getting married and or having kids and such much later, is this trend similar in Canada?


Yeah,  a lot of my friends claim they don't want to get married or have kids. "Common law partnerships" are becoming very common (no pun), basically means cohabitating non married partners. That sounds appealing to me to avoid bureaucracy, but I think getting married is still better for tax/financial reasons.

My dad's born 1958 and my mom's born 1966. She had me very young.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/28/16 at 4:57 pm


Yeah,  a lot of my friends claim they don't want to get married or have kids. "Common law partnerships" are becoming very common (no pun), basically means cohabitating non married partners. That sounds appealing to me to avoid bureaucracy, but I think getting married is still better for tax/financial reasons.

My dad's born 1958 and my mom's born 1966. She had me very young.


My father was born in 1941 My Mother 1945

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/28/16 at 4:58 pm


My father was born in 1941 My Mother 1945


Silent generation!  :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/28/16 at 5:05 pm


Silent generation!  :D


WW2 generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Philip Eno on 01/28/16 at 5:10 pm


Silent generation!  :D

WW2 generation.
Silent? It was noisy during WW2!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/28/16 at 5:12 pm


WW2 generation.

That would be Greatest Generation, born 1910-1927.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/28/16 at 5:14 pm


Silent? It was noisy during WW2!


Born between 1928 - 1945, they were born during a time of low birth rates (Great Depression/WW2), so they're overshadowed by the larger generations they're sandwiched in between (Greatest and Boomers).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/28/16 at 6:15 pm


Yeah,  a lot of my friends claim they don't want to get married or have kids. "Common law partnerships" are becoming very common (no pun), basically means cohabitating non married partners. That sounds appealing to me to avoid bureaucracy, but I think getting married is still better for tax/financial reasons.

My dad's born 1958 and my mom's born 1966. She had me very young.


That's interesting. I haven't seen that take off here in the U.S. Despite Millennials where I live being pretty liberal, we still have sort of a traditional view on marriage (and no I don't mean anti gay marriage or anything along those lines), as most people would want to be married. However who know perhaps Common Law Partnerships might start to become popular.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/28/16 at 8:56 pm

Hey everybody, watch the 2nd video you see on the page and hear what NFL Raven's Wide Receiver "Steve Smith" has to say about Cam Newton, but listen closely to the early part of the video.

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/blog/ravens-talk/steve-smith-says-race-contributes-perception-cam-newton

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/28/16 at 9:03 pm


Hey everybody, watch the 2nd video you see on the page and hear what NFL Raven's Wide Receiver "Steve Smith" has to say about Cam Newton, but listen closely to the early part of the video.

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/blog/ravens-talk/steve-smith-says-race-contributes-perception-cam-newton


That was pretty interesting thanks mqg! I never really noticed until recently but its weird to think that many of the new hot players now like Odell Beckham Jr., Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, amongst others were born in the late 80's/early 90's. Its only a matter of time when mid-late 90's babies come of age in Pro Football :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/29/16 at 12:59 am


Yeah,  a lot of my friends claim they don't want to get married or have kids. "Common law partnerships" are becoming very common (no pun), basically means cohabitating non married partners. That sounds appealing to me to avoid bureaucracy, but I think getting married is still better for tax/financial reasons.

My dad's born 1958 and my mom's born 1966. She had me very young.


It's very good for your taxes and everything. That's one of the reasons we got married. We also just had a private wedding. Very personal. It was just between me and her 'cause we didn't want some big show that costed way too much.

Both my parents were born in '54.

If anyone's interested:
Brother - 1977
Me - 1982 (duh!)
Sister - 1985

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/29/16 at 8:08 am


Silent? It was noisy during WW2!


It was definitely noisy.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: TheKid99 on 01/29/16 at 10:26 am

I think I am apart of the School class that is the first to be pretty much Z. Class of 2018.

Heres my family rundown
Great Grandpa ??? - January 9th 1972
Great Grandma November 23rd, 1915 - September 23rd 2015.
Grandma October 24th 1939 - present
Grandpa Febuary 23rd 1932 - present
Mother September 27th 1969 - present
Father August 29th 1968 - present
John August 22nd 1996 - present
Jake September 10th 1997 - present
Me & My Twin October 13th 1999 - present.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/29/16 at 1:58 pm


It's very good for your taxes and everything. That's one of the reasons we got married. We also just had a private wedding. Very personal. It was just between me and her 'cause we didn't want some big show that costed way too much.

Both my parents were born in '54.

If anyone's interested:
Brother - 1977
Me - 1982 (duh!)
Sister - 1985


Woah! You parents had your brother when they were 23?  :o That's my age! 2 spooky 4 me.

Was your wedding like Sk8er boi come true?

He was a punk, she did ballet
What more can I say?
He wanted her, she'd never tell
Secretly she wanted him as well.


;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 01/29/16 at 3:01 pm

My parents were born in the 50s

Mother: 1957
Father: 1958
Oldest brother: 1975
Brother: 1977
Me:1980
Sister: 1984


I am 6 years older than my boyfriend. My parents are only one year apart.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/29/16 at 3:08 pm


My parents were born in the 50s

Mother: 1957
Father: 1958
Oldest brother: 1975
Brother: 1977
Me:1980
Sister: 1984


I am 6 years older than my boyfriend. My parents are only one year apart.


So that would make you 36? Wow!  :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 01/29/16 at 3:16 pm


So that would make you 36? Wow!  :o


I'll be 36 in September. :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/29/16 at 4:06 pm


I'll be 36 in September. :)


You don't look it, Just like I'll be 42 in March. :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/29/16 at 6:06 pm


You don't look it, Just like I'll be 42 in March. :)

Lol, I'll be turning 20 this March

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/30/16 at 1:49 am


Woah! You parents had your brother when they were 23?  :o That's my age! 2 spooky 4 me.

Was your wedding like Sk8er boi come true?

He was a punk, she did ballet
What more can I say?
He wanted her, she'd never tell
Secretly she wanted him as well.


;D


It's spooky for me, too, dude!

If you'd seen the two of us, you'd think I was the one who was doing ballet. Plus, she's punker than me 'cause she only listens to real Punk like Dead Kennedys and Circle Jerks while I listen to that stuff but I also like the 90's/early 00's Pop Punk, too. ;D ;D


You don't look it, Just like I'll be 42 in March. :)


I will be 34 this August.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 8:27 am


Lol, I'll be turning 20 this March



I will be 34 this August.


I'll be 20 in 10 days!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 01/30/16 at 9:03 am


I'll be 20 in 10 days!


I'm also turning 20 in March too! Wow, the mid-1990s are already about 20 years old, and it will be a matter of time before all of the millennials will be over 20 years old by 2020!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 9:27 am


I'm also turning 20 in March too! Wow, the mid-1990s are already about 20 years old, and it will be a matter of time before all of the millennials will be over 20 years old by 2020!


Wow, so that means we have about 5 people on this site who graduated HS in the 2014 class. That's surreal bro!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 11:55 am


I'm also turning 20 in March too! Wow, the mid-1990s are already about 20 years old, and it will be a matter of time before all of the millennials will be over 20 years old by 2020!


2000 feels to late to be ending Gen Y. They probably had laptops when they were little kids  :o that would make 1993 look like core Y  ;D

I'd say Gen Z child centric culture was already in full swing by 2006, that's when you get Hannah Montana, the Disney Channel's billion sitcoms, the Wii and Xbox 360, laptops and all sorts of other things.

There's also a good argument for 2004 because I was still a bit of a kid then and that's when the Internet started becoming really popular for kids with games like RuneScape, miniclip, Club penguin and all that stuff.

Then there's 1999 which is more controversial, but that's when we got Roller-coaster Tycoon in our cereal boxes, we were playing Pokemon on our Gameboys and we were IM'ing our relatives halfway across the world with MSN or AOL.  I want to know if older members consider 1999/2000 Gen Z kid years as they were experiencing it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 01/30/16 at 11:59 am

In my opinion anyone who graduates high school in the 2000's and 2010's is a millennial. So that would be 1982-2001.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 12:08 pm


2000 feels to late to be ending Gen Y. They probably had laptops when they were little kids  :o that would make 1993 look like core Y  ;D


I agree, I know many people who believe millennials or Gen Y last from 1981-2000, but that's a 20 year span. Most generations only last 15-17 years. I think 1993 is the last true Y born year. 1994-1998 is the Y/Z cusp group, since we are the guinea pigs of early Z culture while we started with the end of Y culture. 1999 is the first true Z born year. If you want to know why I group it like this, feel free to ask.


I'd say Gen Z child centric culture was already in full swing by 2006, that's when you get Hannah Montana, the Disney Channel's billion sitcoms, the Wii and Xbox 360, laptops and all sorts of other things.

There's also a good argument for 2004 because I was still a bit of a kid then and that's when the Internet started becoming really popular for kids with games like RuneScape, miniclip, Club penguin and all that stuff.

Then there's 1999 which is more controversial, but that's when we got Roller-coaster Tycoon in our cereal boxes, we were playing Pokemon on our Gameboys and we were IM'ing our relatives halfway across the world with MSN or AOL.  I want to know if older members consider 1999/2000 Gen Z kid years as they were experiencing it.


I agree with Z kid culture being in full effect by 2006. 2004 & 2005 were transitional years, or the cusp years between Y kid culture and Z kid culture. 2003 was the last true Y kid culture year. I strongly disagree with 1999 or 2000 being Z kid culture years, that's absurd. The kid culture that was relevant around 1999-2000 just screams Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 12:11 pm


In my opinion anyone who graduates high school in the 2000's and 2010's is a millennial. So that would be 1982-2001.


I don'tsee a huge ddifference between someone born 2000 and my sister born 2005. Maybe it's because they're still kids. My cousin born 2000 is on Twitter all day fangirling over Justin Bieber and Shawn Mendes, making a billion tweets a day about them.  That's so Gen Z  ;D

Gen Z definitely starts somewhere in between 1991 - 1999, we are the digital natives.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 12:25 pm


I agree, I know many people who believe millennials or Gen Y last from 1981-2000, but that's a 20 year span. Most generations only last 15-17 years. I think 1993 is the last true Y born year. 1994-1998 is the Y/Z cusp group, since we are the guinea pigs of early Z culture while we started with the end of Y culture. 1999 is the first true Z born year. If you want to know why I group it like this, feel free to ask.

I agree with Z kid culture being in full effect by 2006. 2004 & 2005 were transitional years, or the cusp years between Y kid culture and Z kid culture. 2003 was the last true Y kid culture year. I strongly disagree with 1999 or 2000 being Z kid culture years, that's absurd. The kid culture that was relevant around 1999-2000 just screams Y.


I can agree. 2006 was Gen Z, 2004/2005 were cusp though probably leaning towards Y especially when you take a 2010s childhood into account.

I say 1999 because that's when Internet and computers were commonplace. The Internet wasn't relevant to kid culture yet, but computers definitely were. But then again, that would just make it a glorified gaming console.

I always felt 93 was a cusp year or late Millennial because I can relate to both Gen Y and Gen Z. Like, I  hate it when people say kids these days don't go outside, because they used to say the same thing to me.  >:( the stuff I grew up with feels Gen Y for obvious reasons though lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 12:59 pm


I don'tsee a huge ddifference between someone born 2000 and my sister born 2005. Maybe it's because they're still kids. My cousin born 2000 is on Twitter all day fangirling over Justin Bieber and Shawn Mendes, making a billion tweets a day about them.  That's so Gen Z  ;D

Gen Z definitely starts somewhere in between 1991 - 1999, we are the digital natives.


THIS. I was talking to a person on another forum just yesterday about this. He was born in 2000 and he always seems to bash kids born after 2001/2 for the reason that they weren't '2000s kid'. However I explained to him that I felt that the differences between a late 00's kid (so early 00's borns) and a 10's kid aren't really that major.

So yeah early 2000's borns are most definitely Gen Z. 2000 babies MIGHT be able to claim cusp, but they are definitely leaning on the Z side of things.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 1:29 pm


I can agree. 2006 was Gen Z, 2004/2005 were cusp though probably leaning towards Y especially when you take a 2010s childhood into account.

I say 1999 because that's when Internet and computers were commonplace. The Internet wasn't relevant to kid culture yet, but computers definitely were. But then again, that would just make it a glorified gaming console.

I always felt 93 was a cusp year or late Millennial because I can relate to both Gen Y and Gen Z. Like, I  hate it when people say kids these days don't go outside, because they used to say the same thing to me.  >:( the stuff I grew up with feels Gen Y for obvious reasons though lol.


I've been getting on the internet regularly since 2002, the first full year my family had Windows XP and broadband, however, no where near as much as I started getting on the internet a lot more by 2007 when I discovered Youtube, and by 2009 when I started getting on Facebook.

Since the late 2000's and onwards I'll be on the computer for mostly the internet only for about half of the day unless it's school or work day. Much longer than that if you include mobile phones. However, back in the early/mid 2000's I'd only get on the computer once or twice a week and my parents would give me a time limit. My mom would set the timer to 1 hour and say "hey you must be off the computer by the time this alarm goes off", and I wouldn't just be on the internet on Planet Hot Wheels or Nick.com, I'd also be on Paint, Pinball, or playing a CD-ROM game as well.

Playing on the internet, or computer in general back then before Myspace, Youtube, or any of those major social media sites became popular had a COMPLETELY different vibe compared to today.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 1:36 pm


THIS. I was talking to a person on another forum just yesterday about this. He was born in 2000 and he always seems to bash kids born after 2001/2 for the reason that they weren't '2000s kid'. However I explained to him that I felt that the differences between a late 00's kid (so early 00's borns) and a 10's kid aren't really that major.

So yeah early 2000's borns are most definitely Gen Z. 2000 babies MIGHT be able to claim cusp, but they are definitely leaning on the Z side of things.


I can get that early-mid 2000 babies can be on the cusp, but late 2000 babies were more related towards 2001 babies. I mean, they were more Z than Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 1:42 pm


THIS. I was talking to a person on another forum just yesterday about this. He was born in 2000 and he always seems to bash kids born after 2001/2 for the reason that they weren't '2000s kid'. However I explained to him that I felt that the differences between a late 00's kid (so early 00's borns) and a 10's kid aren't really that major.

So yeah early 2000's borns are most definitely Gen Z. 2000 babies MIGHT be able to claim cusp, but they are definitely leaning on the Z side of things.


Man, that's crazy! I was reading an old thread on here a few weeks ago about a 1990 baby saying how he hates that he's lumped in with 90s babies and not 80s babies. I was thinking to myself "Man, imagine if a someone born 2000 said he felt he had more in common with 90s babies than 2000s babies, how ridiculous would that sound! That's how you sound like."

Now there are places on the Internet where 2000 babies are doing exactly that! That's crazy. And no, I agree with you it still sounds ridiculous.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 1:49 pm


THIS. I was talking to a person on another forum just yesterday about this. He was born in 2000 and he always seems to bash kids born after 2001/2 for the reason that they weren't '2000s kid'. However I explained to him that I felt that the differences between a late 00's kid (so early 00's borns) and a 10's kid aren't really that major.

So yeah early 2000's borns are most definitely Gen Z. 2000 babies MIGHT be able to claim cusp, but they are definitely leaning on the Z side of things.


Do you mean Mattejiogu from Personality Cafe? If so, then doesn't he do that all the time? Despite the fact that he was born in late 2000, which makes him related towards early-mid 2001 babies.

EDIT: I just looked up on PC that jaden_d was also part of this bullcrap, but I digress. Matt actually seems tame compared to him.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 1:54 pm


I've been getting on the internet regularly since 2002, the first full year my family had Windows XP and broadband, however, no where near as much as I started getting on the internet a lot more by 2007 when I discovered Youtube, and by 2009 when I started getting on Facebook.

Since the late 2000's and onwards I'll be on the computer for mostly the internet only for about half of the day unless it's school or work day. Much longer than that if you include mobile phones. However, back in the early/mid 2000's I'd only get on the computer once or twice a week and my parents would give me a time limit. My mom would set the timer to 1 hour and say "hey you must be off the computer by the time this alarm goes off", and I wouldn't just be on the internet on Planet Hot Wheels or Nick.com, I'd also be on Paint, Pinball, or playing a CD-ROM game as well.

Playing on the internet, or computer in general back then before Myspace, Youtube, or any of those major social media sites became popular had a COMPLETELY different vibe compared to today.


Yeah, my childhood was the same. In the early 2000s I didn't go on the computer much. I had two brothers and my dad,  so we had to share, that was our natural time limit. It was mostly my dad's computer though, he used it for work. Some still consider that Gen Z though, because the Internet was still there even if we personally weren't using it.  It would be like a 2000 baby saying oh I never used my laptop even though I had one.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 2:06 pm


Do you mean Mattejiogu from Personality Cafe? If so, then doesn't he do that all the time? Despite the fact that he was born in late 2000, which makes him related towards early-mid 2001 babies.

EDIT: I just looked up on PC that jaden_d was also part of this bullcrap, but I digress. Matt actually seems tame compared to him.


Lol yeah its them. I think they are okay people but they get on my nerves about that bullcrap

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 2:09 pm


Lol yeah its them. I think they are okay people but they get on my nerves about that bullcrap


True. They're okay most of the time, but sometimes they get upset about being born in the early 2000s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 2:11 pm


Man, that's crazy! I was reading an old thread on here a few weeks ago about a 1990 baby saying how he hates that he's lumped in with 90s babies and not 80s babies. I was thinking to myself "Man, imagine if a someone born 2000 said he felt he had more in common with 90s babies than 2000s babies, how ridiculous would that sound! That's how you sound like."

Now there are places on the Internet where 2000 babies are doing exactly that! That's crazy. And no, I agree with you it still sounds ridiculous.


Well I could see why a 1990 person wouldn't want to be in the same category as late 90's babies, which is understandable. But early-mid 90's babies (especially early) just doesn't make much sense to me. Like mqg said a few times before, minus 9/11, the late 90's and early 00's were VERY culturally similar especially in kid centric culture. So I never really understood why early 90's babies distance themselves from mid 90's babies

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 2:12 pm


True. They're okay most of the time, but sometimes they get upset about being born in the early 2000s.


True I think they hate the fact that they are on the cusp zones of the whole 00's kid bullcrap, which I could emphasize with since I'm on the cusp zones of Late Y/Early Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 2:15 pm


True I think they hate the fact that they are on the cusp zones of the whole 00's kid bullcrap, which I could emphasize with since I'm on the cusp zones of Late Y/Early Z.


Yeah, but being on the cusp between Y and Z is different than being on the cusp for 2000s kids. Especially when Jaden is a late 2000s/early 2010s kid.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 2:18 pm


Well I could see why a 1990 person wouldn't want to be in the same category as late 90's babies, which is understandable. But early-mid 90's babies (especially early) just doesn't make much sense to me. Like mqg said a few times before, minus 9/11, the late 90's and early 00's were VERY culturally similar especially in kid centric culture. So I never really understood why early 90's babies distance themselves from mid 90's babies


Yeah I can see how a 1990 baby has more in common with someone born 1985 than 1995, but acting like you get along famously with people born 1981 but feel uncomfortable around people born 1992 sounds extremely ridiculous. I doubt a person like that has many friends to begin with lol.

2000 born probably has more in common with 2005 born than 1995 born though. The lumping in there is justified. Or maybe I'm saying that because those guys are still pretty young, maybe time will tell.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 2:22 pm


Yeah, but being on the cusp between Y and Z is different than being on the cusp for 2000s kids. Especially when Jaden is a late 2000s/early 2010s kid.


True! With the decade debate its easier to know who's a kid of a decade by just using good ole' math. But with generations its much more arbitrary. Everybody has their own opinion of what defines a generation and how old you have to have been to be affected by it. Three of the most common cutoff points for Gen Y is

1. Remembering (or by some, simply being born) before the popularity of the internet

2. Being born before the 20th century ended

3. (and this is the most common point) Remembering 9/11 (or in some cases just simply being born before it)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 2:25 pm

Imo 2000s kids are from 1998 - 2006 if the flash point or culmination point of 2000s kid culture is 2008. My sisters born 2005 were there for Hannah Montana, Suite Life on Deck, Zach and Cody and the Wii/DS, if that's what "2000s kids" are going to reminisce about.

I guess I'm also a 2000s kid but I never felt that way, 2000s is my teen decade to me.

Of course it would be a different story if the flash point of 2000s kid culture is 2001, I'll  totally be there for the #Only2000sKids meme lol

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 2:56 pm


Imo 2000s kids are from 1998 - 2006 if the flash point or culmination point of 2000s kid culture is 2008. My sisters born 2005 were there for Hannah Montana, Suite Life on Deck, Zach and Cody and the Wii/DS, if that's what "2000s kids" are going to reminisce about.

I guess I'm also a 2000s kid but I never felt that way, 2000s is my teen decade to me.

Of course it would be a different story if the flash point of 2000s kid culture is 2001, I'll  totally be there for the #Only2000sKids meme lol


Lol I could only imagine how horrid the 2000's kid debate would be. Heck the 90's kid debate is pretty nasty right now

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 3:05 pm


True! With the decade debate its easier to know who's a kid of a decade by just using good ole' math. But with generations its much more arbitrary. Everybody has their own opinion of what defines a generation and how old you have to have been to be affected by it. Three of the most common cutoff points for Gen Y is

1. Remembering (or by some, simply being born) before the popularity of the internet

2. Being born before the 20th century ended

3. (and this is the most common point) Remembering 9/11 (or in some cases just simply being born before it)



Talk about arbitrary. Why for some things you just have to be born before them, but for other things you have to remember it? Why different rules for different things anyways? That makes no sense? I think the same rules should apply for all of them. Either be born before Internet popularity and 9/11. Or just be able to be remember a time before popularity and 9/11. This is when things get more tricky, however. You see the "remember a time before IE" rule means that even those as early as 1990/1991 would be Gen Z as they were just 4-5 when IE released. Would mostly grow up and have memories after IE released. And 1992 onward would also be Gen Z when following that logic. As for being born before IE that rule is very arbitrary to me. Sometimes I would base a generation based on experience or traits. Lets take someone from 1993 and someone from 1995. They both ended up growing up in a world after IE released despite one being born before IE and one being born the same year as IE. Being born before something isn't what makes two people different. Rather it's actual experiences. And if two people grew up in a post-IE released world then they'd have similar experiences (plus a 1993 and 1995 are only 1-2 years apart which is too small of an age gap to say that there are any real differences).

The 20th century rule I supposed that may work as it's probably the reason the generation is called the "millennials" in the first place. The 9/11 rule has similar issues as the IE rule, but hey it's all up to opinion. I say the rules are arbitrary although some of my points may also be seen as arbitrary to a few of you. It's all  bit confusing for me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 3:12 pm


Lol I could only imagine how horrid the 2000's kid debate would be. Heck the 90's kid debate is pretty nasty right now


Surely we've all learnt from our mistakes  :o

I'm going to defend mid-2000s babies' right to call themselves 2000s kids, what about you?  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 3:16 pm


Surely we've all learnt from our mistakes  :o

I'm going to defend mid-2000s babies' right to call themselves 2000s kids, what about you?  ;D


Mid 2000s babies? There's no way that they're 2000s kids. Sure, '04 babies can remember a bit of the late '00s, but not that much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 3:20 pm

I agree a "born before" rule is very arbitrary.

To me, we first have to agree on whether Gen Z-centric kid culture starts 2006, 2004 or 1999. If we can agree what year it starts on, if you had a significant portion of your childhood occur after those years, then you can be leaning Gen Z if not pure Gen Z. I explained why those years in a previous post.

If we agree with 2006, that would make 1999 the first full Gen Z, 1998 a cusp leaning Z, and 96/97 cusps leaning Y.

If we agree with 2004, that would make 1997 the first full Z, 1996 cusp leaning Z, and 1993-95 cusp leaning Y.

If we agree with 1999/2000, that would make 1992/1993 the first full Z, and 1991 cuspers leaning both, and 1990 a cusp leaning Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 3:25 pm


Surely we've all learnt from our mistakes  :o

I'm going to defend mid-2000s babies' right to call themselves 2000s kids, what about you?  ;D


Hopefully we'd learn the mistakes. Although this may not be the case for the young 2000s born who haven't taken part in the debates as of yet. Heck most 2000s/2010s born may not even be aware of the 1990s nostalgia/debates that're going on. As for defending mid 00's babies well I mostly base things on school years and where a majority of one's main childhood took place. I see main childhood as 5-10 as that's when someone is in elementary from grades K-5 (Due to being born in the summer that means I was 5 for all of grade K and 10 for all of grade 5). But it's different for everyone I suppose (if you're born in the winter/spring you'd both 5-6 in grade K and 10-11 in grade 5. And if you're born in the fall you'd be age 6 in grade K and age 11 in grade 5. So it really depends on the person for when they were born and their overall experiences). But in the end it's up to the person on what they consider themselves to be. I'm in no position to go around telling people how they grew up especially since I haven't ever taken part in that person's life. So in the end who am I to judge?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 3:26 pm


Mid 2000s babies? There's no way that they're 2000s kids. Sure, '04 babies can remember a bit of the late '00s, but not that much.


My sisters born 2005 can remember the late 2000s, maybe with the help of my own memories, but they can.

Say you were a Buzzfeed 'journalist' and you were tasked with creating a 2000s kid list, what would you list? (in list form please, not pictures, I don't want to scroll on mobile lol)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 3:28 pm


I agree a "born before" rule is very arbitrary.

To me, we first have to agree on whether Gen Z-centric kid culture starts 2006, 2004 or 1999. If we can agree what year it starts on, if you had a significant portion of your childhood occur after those years, then you can be leaning Gen Z if not pure Gen Z. I explained why those years in a previous post.

If we agree with 2006, that would make 1999 the first full Gen Z, 1998 a cusp leaning Z, and 96/97 cusps leaning Y.

If we agree with 2004, that would make 1997 the first full Z, 1996 cusp leaning Z, and 1993-95 cusp leaning Y.

If we agree with 1999/2000, that would make 1992/1993 the first full Z, and 1991 cuspers leaning both, and 1990 a cusp leaning Y.


1999/2000 and 2004 seems really unfair. I think anybody should arguably agree that 2006 was the first full Z year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 3:32 pm


1999/2000 and 2004 seems really unfair. I think anybody should arguably agree that 2006 was the first full Z year.


That's true but I'm scared of my personal bias ccreeping in since I was in prime childhood in the Y2K era and was still a bit of a kid in 2004, I don't want personal bias creeping in so I list all possible years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 3:39 pm


I agree a "born before" rule is very arbitrary.

To me, we first have to agree on whether Gen Z-centric kid culture starts 2006, 2004 or 1999. If we can agree what year it starts on, if you had a significant portion of your childhood occur after those years, then you can be leaning Gen Z if not pure Gen Z. I explained why those years in a previous post.

If we agree with 2006, that would make 1999 the first full Gen Z, 1998 a cusp leaning Z, and 96/97 cusps leaning Y.

If we agree with 2004, that would make 1997 the first full Z, 1996 cusp leaning Z, and 1993-95 cusp leaning Y.

If we agree with 1999/2000, that would make 1992/1993 the first full Z, and 1991 cuspers leaning both, and 1990 a cusp leaning Y.


Out of the 1999/2000, 2004, and 2006 options I'd say that 2006-2007 were the first year for Gen Z kid culture. Early '00s, and mid '00s seem like the late years for Gen Y kid culture. late '00s (although numerically 2006 is the ending of the mid '00s) would most likely be the '00s start of Gen Z kid culture. Late Gen Y Kid culture is basically a mix between core Gen Y kid culture and early Gen Z kid culture. Today's culture can be see as Gen Z culture for kids. Now if you were to go back in time 10+ years you'd realize that a lot of things kids do/have today either didn't exist, was in their infancy, or just wasn't the trend. Kids in the early-core '00s aren't the same as kids in the late-core '10s. But again what I'm saying is all just opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 3:40 pm


I agree a "born before" rule is very arbitrary.

To me, we first have to agree on whether Gen Z-centric kid culture starts 2006, 2004 or 1999. If we can agree what year it starts on, if you had a significant portion of your childhood occur after those years, then you can be leaning Gen Z if not pure Gen Z. I explained why those years in a previous post.


I'm sticking with 2006. 2004 is very debatable, but I'd still consider it as transitional along with 2005. 1999 is OUT of the question. I don't know who came up with that. There's no way early 90's babies are part of Gen Z, unless someone else's definition of Gen Y is completely different, like late 70's or early 80's babies being the peak of the generation or something. When most people would disagree on that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 3:42 pm


Out of the 1999/2000, 2004, and 2006 options I'd say that 2006-2007 were the first year for Gen Z kid culture. Early '00s, and mid '00s seem like the late years for Gen Y kid culture. late '00s (although numerically 2006 is the ending of the mid '00s) would most likely be the '00s start of Gen Z kid culture. Late Gen Y Kid culture is basically a mix between core Gen Y kid culture and early Gen Z kid culture. Today's culture can be see as Gen Z culture for kids. Now if you were to go back in time 10+ years you'd realize that a lot of things kids do/have today either didn't exist, was in their infancy, or just wasn't the trend. Kids in the early-core '00s aren't the same as kids in the late-core '10s. But again what I'm saying is all just opinion.


Like I said before. 2003 was the last true year for Y kid culture. 2004 & 2005 were transitional or on the cusp. 2006 was the first true year for Z kid culture.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 3:52 pm


Like I said before. 2003 was the last true year for Y kid culture. 2004 & 2005 were transitional or on the cusp. 2006 was the first true year for Z kid culture.


So then if you're an early '00's kid or older most of your childhood would've been with the Y kid culture. 2004-2005 are transitional alright. And I agree with the 2006 being the first true year for kid culture (well I say 2006 or 2007 but hey close enough. I see 2006 as a transitional as 2006 wasn't all that different from 2005 cultural wise, but hey what do I know). If you're peak childhood was in 2003 or before I'd see the person as late Gen Y. If a person's peak was 2004 they'd be a cusp leaning on Y. If it the peak was in 2005 that person is a cusp leaning to Z. And from 2006 onward I guess it's fully Z from their.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 01/30/16 at 3:55 pm

The first time I heard about Millenials, or what was then called Generation Y, I saw a newspaper article that listed us Millenials as 1981 to 1996.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 4:00 pm


The first time I heard about Millenials, or what was then called Generation Y, I saw a newspaper article that listed us Millenials as 1981 to 1996.


Funny enough I didn't hear about Millennials until 2014. Boy oh boy was I late to the party. Anyways I kept seeing spans from 1980 - 1995, 1982-1996, and 1981-1996. I remember my old college teacher saying the spans were around 1982-1996 which I tend to agree with in most cases. But there will never be an actual set definition.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 01/30/16 at 4:08 pm


Funny enough I didn't hear about Millennials until 2014. Boy oh boy was I late to the party. Anyways I kept seeing spans from 1980 - 1995, 1982-1996, and 1981-1996. I remember my old college teacher saying the spans were around 1982-1996 which I tend to agree with in most cases. But there will never be an actual set definition.


Past 1997 is pushing it to me. Before 1980 is pushing it to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 4:10 pm


I'm sticking with 2006. 2004 is very debatable, but I'd still consider it as transitional along with 2005. 1999 is OUT of the question. I don't know who came up with that. There's no way early 90's babies are part of Gen Z, unless someone else's definition of Gen Y is completely different, like late 70's or early 80's babies being the peak of the generation or something. When most people would disagree on that.


Statistics Canada says 1992 is the end of Gen Y, or the Echo Boomers. It says after that is the Digital Natives, so I'm guessing they would see 1999 as the shift year.

I doubt their countrymen agree with them though, since even the media calls 2015 the first full millennial election year. 2011, millennials were dominant too, but not over powering just yet. I'm born 93 yet got to vote in both elections so I'm not sure if the media would call me Gen Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 4:12 pm


Past 1997 is pushing it to me. Before 1980 is pushing it to me.


It's the same for me. I'd see some moments where it would say that Gen Y began in the 1970s which is WAY too early to me. And anything past 1997 seems way to late to end it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 4:17 pm


Talk about arbitrary. Why for some things you just have to be born before them, but for other things you have to remember it? Why different rules for different things anyways? That makes no sense? I think the same rules should apply for all of them. Either be born before Internet popularity and 9/11. Or just be able to be remember a time before popularity and 9/11. This is when things get more tricky, however. You see the "remember a time before IE" rule means that even those as early as 1990/1991 would be Gen Z as they were just 4-5 when IE released. Would mostly grow up and have memories after IE released. And 1992 onward would also be Gen Z when following that logic. As for being born before IE that rule is very arbitrary to me. Sometimes I would base a generation based on experience or traits. Lets take someone from 1993 and someone from 1995. They both ended up growing up in a world after IE released despite one being born before IE and one being born the same year as IE. Being born before something isn't what makes two people different. Rather it's actual experiences. And if two people grew up in a post-IE released world then they'd have similar experiences (plus a 1993 and 1995 are only 1-2 years apart which is too small of an age gap to say that there are any real differences).

The 20th century rule I supposed that may work as it's probably the reason the generation is called the "millennials" in the first place. The 9/11 rule has similar issues as the IE rule, but hey it's all up to opinion. I say the rules are arbitrary although some of my points may also be seen as arbitrary to a few of you. It's all  bit confusing for me.



Yep there is never going to be a solid cutoff point. However, if it were up to me I agree that the 20th century rule is the best (and IMO) the least controversial cutoff point, because Millennials are called Millennials for a reason. Its because they were the last to be born in the new millennium. Now I am not suggesting that someone from 1982 is in the same exact category as someone from 2000 (or anybody born in the 90's) but as of now it seems like the 80's & 90's definition just seems the most fleshed out right now

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 4:18 pm


Statistics Canada says 1992 is the end of Gen Y, or the Echo Boomers. It says after that is the Digital Natives, so I'm guessing they would see 1999 as the shift year.

I doubt their countrymen agree with them though, since even the media calls 2015 the first full millennial election year. 2011, millennials were dominant too, but not over powering just yet. I'm born 93 yet got to vote in both elections so I'm not sure if the media would call me Gen Z.


Whoa there!  :o 1992 seems way too early. But then again I'm not sure how Canada works. From what I remember 2015 was said to be the first full millennial year (and the year millennials would overtake Baby Boomers). 1993 to me is late Y instead of Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 4:23 pm


My sisters born 2005 can remember the late 2000s, maybe with the help of my own memories, but they can.

Say you were a Buzzfeed 'journalist' and you were tasked with creating a 2000s kid list, what would you list? (in list form please, not pictures, I don't want to scroll on mobile lol)


I would list...

- Cartoon Network's CN City, Summer/Fall, and Noods eras
- Nickelodeon's silver and bronze ages (late 90s to September 2009)
- Disney Channel from the early 2000s to 2006-08
- Discovery Kids (along with Ready Set Learn) from the early 2000s to October 2010
- PBS Kids (before 2013, when they were rebranded)
- HBO Family (for those who actually remember it)
- Radio KOL
- KOL Secret Slumber Party on CBS
- Kewlopolis on CBS
- YTV
- Teletoon
- Family Channel
- DVDs (obviously)
- A few early 2000s movies released on VHS
- Neopets
- YouTube's golden age (before Google+ came)
- World of Warcraft
- Wildtangent Games
- Shockwave Games
- Big Fish Games
- YTMND
- Myspace
- Grand Theft Auto games (from 3D Universe)
- Weston Woods/Scholastic Video Collection videos
- Britney Spears
- Lady Gaga
- Justin Timberlake
- Kanye West (before the 2009 VMAs incident)
- Beyonce
- New York Yankees' dynasty from the late 90s to late 00s
- Tom Brady
- NFL and MLB on FOX

You could add on from this, since I could just say it's the 2000s in a nutshell.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 4:23 pm


Yep there is never going to be a solid cutoff point. However, if it were up to me I agree that the 20th century rule is the best (and IMO) the least controversial cutoff point, because Millennials are called Millennials for a reason. Its because they were the last to be born in the new millennium. Now I am not suggesting that someone from 1982 is in the same exact category as someone from 2000 (or anybody born in the 90's) but as of now it seems like the 80's & 90's definition just seems the most fleshed out right now


Well what some seem to forget is that just because they're in the same generation it doesn't mean they can be compared. It's a reason we cut the generations into the "early, core, and late" parts. Early members differ from core members who differ from late members. The same can be said when just talking about time periods. For example just because tons of people grew up in for example the 2000s it doesn't mean that they're all the same when looking at the parts people have mainly grew up in (an early decade kid isn't the same as a late decade kid for example). Also to me the 20th century rule is the one that probably works the best to me. It makes sense as it's even the reason Gen Y are called the Millennials since the year 2000 is a millennium year as it's where the 20th century ends. Rules such as the "born before" rules don't make much sense especially when you take the time to break things down into detail.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 4:39 pm


I would list...

- Cartoon Network's CN City, Summer/Fall, and Noods eras
- Nickelodeon's silver and bronze ages (late 90s to September 2009)
- Disney Channel from the early 2000s to 2006-08
- Discovery Kids (along with Ready Set Learn) from the early 2000s to October 2010
- PBS Kids (before 2013, when they were rebranded)
- HBO Family (for those who actually remember it)
- Radio KOL
- KOL Secret Slumber Party on CBS
- Kewlopolis on CBS
- YTV
- Teletoon
- Family Channel
- DVDs (obviously)
- A few early 2000s movies released on VHS
- Neopets
- YouTube's golden age (before Google+ came)
- World of Warcraft
- Wildtangent Games
- Shockwave Games
- Big Fish Games
- YTMND
- Myspace
- Grand Theft Auto games (from 3D Universe)
- Weston Woods/Scholastic Video Collection videos
- Britney Spears
- Lady Gaga
- Justin Timberlake
- Kanye West (before the 2009 VMAs incident)
- Beyonce
- New York Yankees' dynasty from the late 90s to late 00s
- Tom Brady
- NFL and MLB on FOX

You could add on from this, since I could just say it's the 2000s in a nutshell.


Oh but this is an actual objective list  ;D I want to know what you'd list personally, as someone who has no qualms about calling one's self  a 2000s kid. Like how I'd list the Amanda Show and NSYNC, but you probably wouldn't care for those things.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 4:39 pm

In all honesty I feel like the 1980-1997 definition is probably the best one out there right now because it makes sense. Think about it, someone's peak childhood occurred around their 2nd grade year, aka age 7-8. Someone from the first half of 1980 would be slightly leaning X as they were in 2nd Grade during the 1987-1988 School Year when things were leaning on the X side of things such as Transformers in their last season, before the TMNT blew up in popularity, and when animation (especially Disney) were still in the dumps.

I think the 1988-1989 school year was probably the first school year leaning on the Y side of things because thats when shows like TMNT and The Real Ghostbusters seemed to be hitting their peak and Disney had started to bounce back with the cult classic Who Framed Roger Rabbit. So in this case, while its a bit confusing, I think its fair to say that the H.S C/O 1998, those born 1979/1980, were probably the last of X, while the C/O 1999 were probably the first of Y being in their peaks during the 88-89' school year.

Now for ending it is a bit tricky as everybody has their own opinions on when Y kid culture ended. But I have to agree with the overall census that 2005 was like the modern era's 1988. Someone who was in 2nd grade in the 2004-2005 school year was in school during when Cartoon Cartoons were still on the air, 90s Nicktoons were still shown on reruns, and when early 00's fads like YuGiOh and Beyblades were still common. Also this was probably the last Web 1.0 school year, as kids only used the internet to play games and teens for the most part used it for chat rooms. This changed during the 2005-06' school year as Myspace was now undeniable popular with teens, and YouTube was starting to gain ground having equal popualirity wth teens and kids. Also kids networks by this point were MUCH different to how they were just even a couple years ago, such as Cartoon Network having shows like Ben 10, Juniper Lee, & My Pet Monkey is a (idk) were much different programming to what CN was just showing two years prior with the tail end of Dexter's Lab, Powerpuff Girls, & Johnny Bravo.

All in all, if we had to make a cutoff point I would say those part of the C/O 2015 would be the last of Y & the C/O 2016 would be the start of Z

So as of now that would make Gen Y ranging in age from age 18 to 35, which makes sense since most marketers tend use the typical '18-34/35' age range when targeting Gen Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 4:43 pm


Well what some seem to forget is that just because they're in the same generation it doesn't mean they can be compared. It's a reason we cut the generations into the "early, core, and late" parts. Early members differ from core members who differ from late members. The same can be said when just talking about time periods. For example just because tons of people grew up in for example the 2000s it doesn't mean that they're all the same when looking at the parts people have mainly grew up in (an early decade kid isn't the same as a late decade kid for example). Also to me the 20th century rule is the one that probably works the best to me. It makes sense as it's even the reason Gen Y are called the Millennials since the year 2000 is a millennium year as it's where the 20th century ends. Rules such as the "born before" rules don't make much sense especially when you take the time to break things down into detail.


But isn't born before 2001 another example of a "born before" rule, which we agree is pretty arbitrary?  :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 4:47 pm


Past 1997 is pushing it to me. Before 1980 is pushing it to me.


I can agree with this. Not because "oh I can't relate to anyone born after 1997!" but because anything bigger than that is looking to big for a single cultural generation.  :o

I agree Ocarina, 1989 - 2005 are the years of Gen Y centric kid culture years. Always important to get someone without a conflict of interest to chime in though  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 4:48 pm


Oh but this is an actual objective list  ;D I want to know what you'd list personally, as someone who has no qualms about calling one's self  a 2000s kid. Like how I'd list the Amanda Show and NSYNC, but you probably wouldn't care for those things.


That is what I listed personally. Hell, even some stuff like Weston Woods or HBO Family is something that I experienced personally as a '00s kid.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 4:51 pm


Now for ending it is a bit tricky as everybody has their own opinions on when Y kid culture ended. But I have to agree with the overall census that 2005 was like the modern era's 1988. Someone who was in 2nd grade in the 2004-2005 school year was in school during when Cartoon Cartoons were still on the air, 90s Nicktoons were still shown on reruns, and when early 00's fads like YuGiOh and Beyblades were still common. Also this was probably the last Web 1.0 school year, as kids only used the internet to play games and teens for the most part used it for chat rooms. This changed during the 2005-06' school year as Myspace was now undeniable popular with teens, and YouTube was starting to gain ground having equal popualirity wth teens and kids. Also kids networks by this point were MUCH different to how they were just even a couple years ago, such as Cartoon Network having shows like Ben 10, Juniper Lee, & My Pet Monkey is a (idk) were much different programming to what CN was just showing two years prior with the tail end of Dexter's Lab, Powerpuff Girls, & Johnny Bravo.


You mean 2003-2004?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 4:54 pm


That is what I listed personally. Hell, even some stuff like Weston Woods or HBO Family is something that I experienced personally as a '00s kid.


You guys had YTV /Teletoons / Family Chabnel? Was that on an illegal satellite?  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 5:00 pm


You guys had YTV /Teletoons / Family Chabnel? Was that on an illegal satellite?  ;D


No, it's just that some cartoons that originated from YTV, Teletoons, or Family Channel were part of my childhood. (e.g. Maggie and the Ferocious Beast, Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends, Franklin)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 5:01 pm


You mean 2003-2004?


I meant 2004-2005, Johnny Bravo & Powerpuff Girls were in their final season that school year and you still had reruns of other Cartoon Cartoons. However I agree with you that 2003-2004 is the last firm Y school year especially since CN was in their Powerhouse Era, Nick was in their Klasky Csupo Era, & Disney Channel was at its peak of its early-mid 00's silver age with early 00's shows like Lizzie McGuire & Even Stevens in their last seasons and Thats So Raven & Phil of the Future becomming massively popular

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 5:03 pm


I meant 2004-2005, Johnny Bravo & Powerpuff Girls were in their final season that school year and you still had reruns of other Cartoon Cartoons. However I agree with you that 2003-2004 is the last firm Y school year especially since CN was in their Powerhouse Era, Nick was in their Klasky Csupo Era, & Disney Channel was at its peak of its early-mid 00's silver age with early 00's shows like Lizzie McGuire & Even Stevens in their last seasons and Thats So Raven & Phil of the Future becomming massively popular


What are your thoughts on the 2005-2006 school year being either Y or Z?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 5:04 pm


What are your thoughts on the 2005-2006 school year being either Y or Z?


Y/Z Cusp, but leaning Z overall

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 5:08 pm


Y/Z Cusp, but leaning Z overall


Okay.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 5:12 pm


No, it's just that some cartoons that originated from YTV, Teletoons, or Family Channel were part of my childhood. (e.g. Maggie and the Ferocious Beast, Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends, Franklin)


Oh yeaaah that's the good stuff  :D

I'm guessing those aired later over there? Over here those are Y2K era shows :o specifically late 90s. Although I remember watching Franklin with my sister, so maybe that kept airing. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 5:19 pm


Y/Z Cusp, but leaning Z overall


Hannah Montana aired March 2006. Xbox 360 released November 2005, DS Lite released June 2006, Wii released November 2006. 

I think just the year 2006 itself is Gen Z.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 5:21 pm


Oh yeaaah that's the good stuff  :D

I'm guessing those aired later over there? Over here those are Y2K era shows :o specifically late 90s. Although I remember watching Franklin with my sister, so maybe that kept airing.


Actually, Maggie and Franklin just kept on airing from Noggin until they rebranded in 2009 (I think). But since I stopped watching the network around 2006-early 2007, I really don't know when it stopped airing those shows. I remembered watching those shows when I was 4 to 6.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 5:23 pm


Hannah Montana aired March 2006. Xbox 360 released November 2005, DS Lite released June 2006, Wii released November 2006. 

I think just the year 2006 itself is Gen Z.  ;D


Then that answers my question. Although, Wii's release was in the 2006-2007 school year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 5:29 pm


Hannah Montana aired March 2006. Xbox 360 released November 2005, DS Lite released June 2006, Wii released November 2006. 

I think just the year 2006 itself is Gen Z.  ;D


Yeah I was 10 in 2006, so my childhood was already near its end. I'm definitely more of a Late Yer!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 5:34 pm


But isn't born before 2001 another example of a "born before" rule, which we agree is pretty arbitrary?  :o


Again it goes to show how tricky it is to try and define a generation and it's year span. But the born before 2001 one logic I can somewhat agree with. But not because of the "born before" rule as I think that rule doesn't make sense. Rather it's because 2001 borns would've mainly grew up in Gen Z culture for most of their childhoods and such. I see 2001 as Gen Z, but my reasoning isn't as arbitrary as the "born before" rule (although in the end it is just my own opinion). I'm instead basing things on when a 2001 born would've grown up and the culture they wouldn't been exposed to. 2001 would've mainly grown up in the late '00s for most of their childhoods which by that time is when Gen Z kid culture is in full effect. Some websites would have the "born before" rule, but not actually explaining why they use that rule. Heck they don't even try to break things down in terms of cultural influences. And as mentioned before I'd end it at 2000 since that is a millennium year which is why I think the term "millennials" was created for Gen Y members.

But again it's all my own views/opinion. If you see it as arbitrary then I completely understand. I don't want anyone to think that I see my own views as fact.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 5:44 pm


Again it goes to show how tricky it is to try and define a generation and it's year span. But the born before 2001 one logic I can somewhat agree with. But not because of the "born before" rule as I think that rule doesn't make sense. Rather it's because 2001 borns would've mainly grew up in Gen Z culture for most of their childhoods and such. I see 2001 as Gen Z, but my reasoning isn't as arbitrary as the "born before" rule (although in the end it is just my own opinion). I'm instead basing things on when a 2001 born would've grown up and the culture they wouldn't been exposed to. 2001 would've mainly grown up in the late '00s for most of their childhoods which by that time is when Gen Z kid culture is in full effect. Some websites would have the "born before" rule, but not actually explaining why they use that rule. Heck they don't even try to break things down in terms of cultural influences. And as mentioned before I'd end it at 2000 since that is a millennium year which is why I think the term "millennials" was created for Gen Y members.

But again it's all my own views/opinion. If you see it as arbitrary then I completely understand. I don't want anyone to think that I see my own views as fact.


I think the word Millennial came from the Class of 2000, which would be those born 1981-1982. They were considered to have grown up with the Internet, even though it was a while before they actually got it  :o

I think those born 1998-2000 also grew up mainly in Gen Z centric kid culture, which is why I think "born in the 2nd millennium" rule is a bit arbitrary.

And I agree, we're all just giving our opinions here.  ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 5:54 pm


I think the word Millennial came from the Class of 2000, which would be those born 1981-1982. They were considered to have grown up with the Internet, even though it was a while before they actually got it  :o

I think those born 1998-2000 also grew up mainly in Gen Z centric kid culture, which is why I think "born in the 2nd millennium" rule is a bit arbitrary.

And I agree, we're all just giving our opinions here.  ;)


I think a way to see it is that those born from 1998-2000 could debatbly be Z, and for the most part would exhibit mostly Z traits. However, they were still born before the millennium changed thus making them Millennials to some extent. However, 2001 is Z without a doubt because like their slightly older companions born in the very late 90's who grew up mostly in the Z kid culture, they would of also been the first to have been born in the 21st century which is pretty significant to consider. Also since most people typically start to have vivid memories around age 5, someone from 2001 would've been 5 in 2006, when Z kid culture was in full force, so all of their core childhoods (age 5-10) would've been in the Z era

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 6:02 pm

Although to be fair 2001 borns are probably the last to have vague memories of when kid culture was leaning Y, since they were 3-4 in 2004-2005.

I guess H.S Grad Class Wise you could look at it like this:

C/O 1995 - C/O 1998: Ultimate XY Cusp/Main Transformers Era Kids (Mid-Late 80's)

C/O 1999 - C/O 2004: Early Y/Main Neon Era Kids (Late 80's/Early 90's)

C/O 2005 - C/O 2009: Core Y/Main Grunge Era Kids (Mid-Late 90's)

C/O 2010 - C/O 2015: Late Y/Main Y2K Era Kids (Very Late 90's/Early-Mid 00's)

C/O 2016 - C/O 2019: YZ Cusp/Main Hannah Montana Era Kids (Mid-Late 00's)

C/O 2020 & After: Z

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 6:09 pm


I think the word Millennial came from the Class of 2000, which would be those born 1981-1982. They were considered to have grown up with the Internet, even though it was a while before they actually got it  :o

I think those born 1998-2000 also grew up mainly in Gen Z centric kid culture, which is why I think "born in the 2nd millennium" rule is a bit arbitrary.

And I agree, we're all just giving our opinions here.  ;)


Well year 1998-2000 did. I forgot to add in the part where I mainly see Gen Y as 1982-1997. I only discussed 2001 as you asked about and to clear up a few things concerning it. Overall I see the Gen Y as 1982-1997. The Class of 2000 rule doesn't seem arbitrary as it's the reason the generation has its name. But any "born before" rule is stupid. I will always base things based on how/when someone would've grown up. Anyone who would've mainly grown up in the 2nd half of the 2000s as a kid would be a Gen Z to me. If someone mainly grew up in the 1st half than they're late Y. And anything before that is Core Y or earlier. I'm with you on basing things how someone grew up and when they grew up instead of basing things on the stupid "born before" rule that usually ends up making things confusing and just downright wrong to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/30/16 at 6:18 pm


In my opinion anyone who graduates high school in the 2000's and 2010's is a millennial. So that would be 1982-2001.


What about for guys who graduated High School in the early 90's?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 6:25 pm


What about for guys who graduated High School in the early 90's?


To graduate in the early 1990s you'd have to born in the early-mid '70s which to me makes someone a Gen X.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 6:26 pm


C/O 2010 - C/O 2015: Late Y/Main Y2K Era Kids (Very Late 90's/Early-Mid 00's)


I think main Y2K era kids and the Late Y group should be separated. Y2K era means both late 90's & early 2000's combined together, but most of the Y2K culture is mainly late 90's culture. I think early 90's babies are the main Y2K era kids, or Classes of 2008-2012. With 1992 born's or Class of 2010 being the peak of it. I think you have to be in elementary school during the 1999-2000 school year in order to qualify as a Y2K kid. Classes of 2013-2015 had core childhood in the early 2000's, but had core childhood in the mid 2000's too and none in the late 90's. I wouldn't consider myself as a Y2K kid, but I'd rather say "both early 2000's & mid 2000's kid". Even by the time Class of 2015 were in 1st grade the Y2K era had ended and the core 2000's was in full effect, but at the same time it was still in the early to mid 2000's cultural transition.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 6:32 pm


I think main Y2K era kids and the Late Y group should be separated. Y2K era means both late 90's & early 2000's combined together, but most of the Y2K culture is mainly late 90's culture. I think early 90's babies are the main Y2K era kids, or Classes of 2008-2012. With 1992 born's or Class of 2010 being the peak of it. I think you have to be in elementary school during the 1999-2000 school year in order to qualify as a Y2K kid. Classes of 2013-2015 had core childhood in the early 2000's, but had core childhood in the mid 2000's too and none in the late 90's. I wouldn't consider myself as a Y2K kid, but I'd rather say "both early 2000's & mid 2000's kid". Even by the time Class of 2015 were in 1st grade the Y2K era had ended and the core 2000's was in full effect, but at the same time it was still in the early to mid 2000's cultural transition.


So I guess we would be the Nu Metal Era Kids

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/30/16 at 6:39 pm


To graduate in the early 1990s you'd have to born in the early-mid '70s which to me makes someone a Gen X.


I was born in 1974.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 6:44 pm


I think main Y2K era kids and the Late Y group should be separated. Y2K era means both late 90's & early 2000's combined together, but most of the Y2K culture is mainly late 90's culture. I think early 90's babies are the main Y2K era kids, or Classes of 2008-2012. With 1992 born's or Class of 2010 being the peak of it. I think you have to be in elementary school during the 1999-2000 school year in order to qualify as a Y2K kid. Classes of 2013-2015 had core childhood in the early 2000's, but had core childhood in the mid 2000's too and none in the late 90's. I wouldn't consider myself as a Y2K kid, but I'd rather say "both early 2000's & mid 2000's kid". Even by the time Class of 2015 were in 1st grade the Y2K era had ended and the core 2000's was in full effect, but at the same time it was still in the early to mid 2000's cultural transition.


I see anyone who is a late '90s - early '00s kid (I see late '90s-early '00s kids as those born 1990-1995) to be a Y2K kid since it's odd to have an late '90s kid group then an early '00s kid group and then Y2K kid which is essentially just a group within a group. To me Y2K era includes the eras from both the late '90s and early '00s meaning to me both those eras and what is their respective cultures would fit into that category.I say 1990-1995 as they were in their all in their childhoods when the Y2K culture of 1998-2002/3 started. 1992 would be the peak as those from that year are late '90s and early '00s hybrids. 1995 is the last of the bunch due to starting their early childhood when the era began (age 3 by 1998). But hey this is my own little opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 6:45 pm


I was born in 1974.


Yep, to me that's Gen X alright. Gen Y wouldn't start for another 8 years after your birth.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 6:50 pm


Although to be fair 2001 borns are probably the last to have vague memories of when kid culture was leaning Y, since they were 3-4 in 2004-2005.

I guess H.S Grad Class Wise you could look at it like this:

C/O 1995 - C/O 1998: Ultimate XY Cusp/Main Transformers Era Kids (Mid-Late 80's)

C/O 1999 - C/O 2004: Early Y/Main Neon Era Kids (Late 80's/Early 90's)

C/O 2005 - C/O 2009: Core Y/Main Grunge Era Kids (Mid-Late 90's)

C/O 2010 - C/O 2015: Late Y/Main Y2K Era Kids (Very Late 90's/Early-Mid 00's)

C/O 2016 - C/O 2019: YZ Cusp/Main Hannah Montana Era Kids (Mid-Late 00's)

C/O 2020 & After: Z


Honestly, I don't think a lot of boys from the late 90s/early 00s watched Hannah Montana. Even I didn't watch the show, since it was so dull. Couldn't you call the classes of 2016-19 the Wii Era or something?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 6:53 pm


Honestly, I don't think a lot of boys from the late 90s/early 00s watched Hannah Montana. Even I didn't watch the show, since it was so dull. Couldn't you call the classes of 2016-19 the Wii Era or something?


Yeah that makes much more sense!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 6:55 pm


Honestly, I don't think a lot of boys from the late 90s/early 00s watched Hannah Montana. Even I didn't watch the show, since it was so dull. Couldn't you call the classes of 2016-19 the Wii Era or something?


No disrespect to Ocarinafan96, but I also don't think "Hannah Montana" would be a good name to use. Wii era would work, but that's only assuming everyone had a Nintendo Wii. Although at the same time I'm not entirely sure what would be a good name that would help describe the entire group (without making it seem as if the group is being generalized). But hey what do I know.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 7:00 pm


I see anyone who is a late '90s - early '00s kid (I see late '90s-early '00s kids as those born 1990-1995) to be a Y2K kid since it's odd to have an late '90s kid group then an early '00s kid group and then Y2K kid which is essentially just a group within a group. To me Y2K era includes the eras from both the late '90s and early '00s meaning to me both those eras and what is their respective cultures would fit into that category.I say 1990-1995 as they were in their all in their childhoods when the Y2K culture of 1998-2002/3 started. 1992 would be the peak as those from that year are late '90s and early '00s hybrids. 1995 is the last of the bunch due to starting their early childhood when the era began (age 3 by 1998). But hey this is my own little opinion.


1992 is most definitely the peak late 90's/early 00's child since they were age 7-8, in 1999-2000. I'd have to disagree with ending at 95' though as someone from 96' also entered their childhood in the late 90's, 1999 to be exact. IMO anybody who was age 3-12 in 1999 were kids in the Y2K Era to some extent, with an emphasis on those born in 1992 for reasons I laid out before.

Personally if you ask me I would graph it like this using peak childhood, age 7-8, as parameters for peak childhood:

Main Late 90's Kids: b. Late 1989 - Mid 1992, were in their peak from Spring of 97' through Fall of 99'

(1992=Ultimate Late 90's/Early 00's Kids)

Main Early 00's Kids: b. Late 1992 - Mid 1996, were in their peak from Winter of 2000/1 through Winter 2003/4



No disrespect to Ocarinafan96, but I also don't think "Hannah Montana" would be a good name to use. Wii era would work, but that's only assuming everyone had a Nintendo Wii. Although at the same time I'm not entirely sure what would be a good name that would help describe the entire group (without making it seem as if the group is being generalized). But hey what do I know.


Non taking! I agree 'Hannah Montana' wasn't the best name I could think of. Wii Era works as well! Emo Era Kids is a contender as well since Emo was at its peak in popularity in the late 00's

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 7:14 pm


1992 is most definitely the peak late 90's/early 00's child since they were age 7-8, in 1999-2000. I'd have to disagree with ending at 95' though as someone from 96' also entered their childhood in the late 90's, 1999 to be exact. IMO anybody who was age 3-12 in 1999 were kids in the Y2K Era to some extent, with an emphasis on those born in 1992 for reasons I laid out before.

Personally if you ask me I would graph it like this using peak childhood, age 7-8, as parameters for peak childhood:

Main Late 90's Kids: b. Late 1989 - Mid 1992, were in their peak from Spring of 97' through Fall of 99'

(1992=Ultimate Late 90's/Early 00's Kids)

Main Early 00's Kids: b. Late 1992 - Mid 1996, were in their peak from Winter of 2000/1 through Winter 2003/4


I was mostly referring to those whose were in their childhoods for all of the Y2K years. 1995 born were the last the have their childhoods for the entire Y2K era (they were 3 in 1998 which is the start of the millennium era which means their first childhood memories would be of the Y2K cultural era). Not only that but they also began school in 2000 which is the millennial year. Y2K means 2000 (when talking about the exact year and not the era) which is when someone from 1995 would've started school. But if we're talking about Late '90s-Early '00s kids as a whole then it's 1989-1996. 1989 are the first of the late '90s kids. And 1996 are the last of the early '00s kids. Again this is just my opinion which is no way resembles an actual fact. I could be dead wrong for all I know.


Non taking! I agree 'Hannah Montana' wasn't the best name I could think of. Wii Era works as well! Emo Era Kids is a contender as well since Emo was at its peak in popularity in the late 00's


Oh good I was worried that I'd make you upset. I'm that type of guy who's always trying to express his opinion and feels paranoid that I may have offended someone else.  :) Also yeah the Emo era may work. Emo kids had a rise in the late 00s so I'd agree with that one.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 7:17 pm

My brother used to straighten his hair and listen to Scandinavian metal back in 2008-09 schoolyear when the ttrend was on its last legs. His hair is naturally brown/black so he didn't even need to dye it  ;D

Oh man the school picture from that year is gold. He still hides it deep in his cupboard and guards it like a hawk.

People used to accuse me of being emo because my hair is black and I listened to rock, but it's naturally like that  >:( I wonder how many people looked at me and were thinking "ugh another emo kid"

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 7:24 pm


My brother used to straighten his hair and listen to Scandinavian metal back in 2008-09 schoolyear when the ttrend was on its last legs. His hair is naturally brown/black so he didn't even need to dye it  ;D

Oh man the school picture from that year is gold. He still hides it deep in his cupboard and guards it like a hawk.

People used to accuse me of being emo because my hair is black and I listened to rock, but it's naturally like that  >:( I wonder how many people looked at me and were thinking "ugh another emo kid"


HA! It's always nice to look at old pictures from older eras, right? Look back at the Emo kid era and see what you used to look like. When did the Emo kid era end anyways? Is it still going on?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 7:38 pm


HA! It's always nice to look at old pictures from older eras, right? Look back at the Emo kid era and see what you used to look like. When did the Emo kid era end anyways? Is it still going on?


2004-2008 was its heyday I'd say, 2008-09 my brother was like the last emo kid in school and really he was just too lazy to cut his hair.

My hair was long! Long! Well not very long but embarrassing enough  :-X

I was doing Justin Bieber's 2009 hair before Bieber basically, except my hair is shinier and straighter. Looks kinda anime.

Most the girls have straight hair with bangs. Their hair has aged better lol. Most the guys hairstyle in this picture is absolute no-go.  It's either spikey hair with ridiculous amount of gel, or its like my hair, or a bowl cut.  ;D

Were you in school 2008-09?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 7:55 pm


I see anyone who is a late '90s - early '00s kid (I see late '90s-early '00s kids as those born 1990-1995) to be a Y2K kid since it's odd to have an late '90s kid group then an early '00s kid group and then Y2K kid which is essentially just a group within a group. To me Y2K era includes the eras from both the late '90s and early '00s meaning to me both those eras and what is their respective cultures would fit into that category.I say 1990-1995 as they were in their all in their childhoods when the Y2K culture of 1998-2002/3 started. 1992 would be the peak as those from that year are late '90s and early '00s hybrids. 1995 is the last of the bunch due to starting their early childhood when the era began (age 3 by 1998). But hey this is my own little opinion.


1990-1995 sounds about right.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 7:57 pm


2004-2008 was its heyday I'd say, 2008-09 my brother was like the last emo kid in school and really he was just too lazy to cut his hair.

My hair was long! Long! Well not very long but embarrassing enough  :-X

I was doing Justin Bieber's 2009 hair before Bieber basically, except my hair is shinier and straighter. Looks kinda anime.

Most the girls have straight hair with bangs. Their hair has aged better lol. Most the guys hairstyle in this picture is absolute no-go.  It's either spikey hair with ridiculous amount of gel, or its like my hair, or a bowl cut.  ;D

Were you in school 2008-09?


Ha! My old buddies back in the mid-late '00s used to dress just like that. I was still dressing the way I did in 2002-2003, but it was the year 2006. While a lot of others around me (except 1 of my other friends) was changing their fashion to match the trends. Looking back at the mid-late '00s I'm already thinking to myself "Wow I can't believe people used to look like that".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 7:57 pm


2004-2008 was its heyday I'd say, 2008-09 my brother was like the last emo kid in school and really he was just too lazy to cut his hair.

My hair was long! Long! Well not very long but embarrassing enough  :-X

I was doing Justin Bieber's 2009 hair before Bieber basically, except my hair is shinier and straighter. Looks kinda anime.

Most the girls have straight hair with bangs. Their hair has aged better lol. Most the guys hairstyle in this picture is absolute no-go.  It's either spikey hair with ridiculous amount of gel, or its like my hair, or a bowl cut.  ;D

Were you in school 2008-09?


It's interesting you mention that. the 2008-2009 school year, felt like the last breath of emo. Scene probably lasted a bit longer though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 8:01 pm


Ha! My old buddies back in the mid-late '00s used to dress just like that. I was still dressing the way I did in 2002-2003, but it was the year 2006. While a lot of others around me (except 1 of my other friends) was changing their fashion to match the trends. Looking back at the mid-late '00s I'm already thinking to myself "Wow I can't believe people used to look like that".


I wasn't a huge fan of emo or scene, so my fashion was still pretty 2003ish. Though, I felt as if, the emo and scene trends were mostly affecting a specific population, which was mostly people in middle and high school. It didn't seem to effect the general public, nor did it seem to effect mainstream fashion. That why I feel this current era is worse for fashion, because the hipster influence is actually effecting mainstream fashion. And in my opinion, hipster is far more cringeworthy than emo.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 8:04 pm


It's interesting you mention that. the 2008-2009 school year, felt like the last breath of emo. Scene probably lasted a bit longer though.


Emo ended during the 08-09 school year similarly to how Myspace ended its main strand of popularity during that same school year. On the flip side, Scene (which I think began around 2007?) was probably at its peak from what I remember during the 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 school year. Scene phased out in 2012-13' around the same time when facebook was starting to get big competition from Twitter, Instagram, & Tumblr. Just a weird observation I've noticed

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 8:05 pm


Emo ended during the 08-09 school year similarly to how Myspace ended its main strand of popularity during that same school year. On the flip side, Scene (which I think began around 2007?) was probably at its peak from what I remember during the 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 school year. Scene phased out in 2012-13' around the same time when facebook was starting to get big competition from Twitter, Instagram, & Tumblr. Just a weird observation I've noticed


I noticed that too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 8:08 pm

Oh my God, I honestly hadn't heard of scene until I got on this board. But that's almost exactly how I looked 2007-2009  :o

I'm sorry musicguy, I didn't know. Forgive me!  :(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 8:09 pm


I wasn't a huge fan of emo or scene, so my fashion was still pretty 2003ish. Though, I felt as if, the emo and scene trends were mostly affecting a specific population, which was mostly people in middle and high school. It didn't seem to effect the general public, nor did it seem to effect mainstream fashion. That why I feel this current era is worse for fashion, because the hipster influence is actually effecting mainstream fashion. And in my opinion, hipster is far more cringeworthy than emo.


I wasn't the biggest fan of the emo/scene fashions, but I'll take those over the hipster fashion any day. Hopefully within a few years the hipster trends will go out of style.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 8:11 pm


Oh my God, I honestly hadn't heard of scene until I got on this board. But that's almost exactly how I looked 2007-2009  :o

I'm sorry musicguy, I didn't know. Forgive me!  :(


YOU DIDN'T KNOW?! :o :o >:( >:(  Do you know how much trouble you're now in?!  >:( >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 8:12 pm


Oh my God, I honestly hadn't heard of scene until I got on this board. But that's almost exactly how I looked 2007-2009  :o

I'm sorry musicguy, I didn't know. Forgive me!  :(


Lol, it's cool man. No biggie. Unless it's biggie smalls.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 8:14 pm


Ha! My old buddies back in the mid-late '00s used to dress just like that. I was still dressing the way I did in 2002-2003, but it was the year 2006. While a lot of others around me (except 1 of my other friends) was changing their fashion to match the trends. Looking back at the mid-late '00s I'm already thinking to myself "Wow I can't believe people used to look like that".


Hahaha, yeah, fashion is so different now, we'd all definitely look out of place just with our hair  ;D

I like hipster/2010s fashion more than 2000s fashion in general, but that's just my opinion. Well, it depends on type of hipster, the stuff you see today with the manbuns and the untrimmed beards? Ew. Early 2010s trimmed beard and undercuts/pompadours look fantastic to me though. Again, all just my opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 8:16 pm


I wasn't the biggest fan of the emo/scene fashions, but I'll take those over the hipster fashion any day. Hopefully within a few years the hipster trends will go out of style.


Yeah, I'm not sure when the hipster trend will finally die out. Heck, I'm not even sure whether or not we're at the peak yet.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 8:16 pm


YOU DIDN'T KNOW?! :o :o >:( >:(  Do you know how much trouble you're now in?!  >:( >:(


Honestly I always thought the Asians in my class had the nicest hair, so I just copied them. They were all about Anime hair, and now I see that's pretty much what scene is  :( forgive me father for I did not know!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 8:20 pm


Honestly I always thought the Asians in my class had the nicest hair, so I just copied them. They were all about Anime hair, and now I see that's pretty much what scene is  :( forgive me father for I did not know!


Actually the scene kids mostly copied the style of metalcore/post hardcore bands of the time like Escape The Fate, Asking Alexandria, Bring Me The Horizon, etc.

Now even the post hardcore/metalcore bands look like hipsters.

Though there is another style in Japan called Visual Kei, which has been around much longer than scene. I don

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 8:38 pm


I'll be 36 in September. :)

Be 21 in October! :D  Yikes! :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 01/30/16 at 8:39 pm


Be 21 in October! :D  Yikes! :o


Chug! Chug! Chug! Chug! Chug!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 8:44 pm


Actually the scene kids mostly copied the style of metalcore/post hardcore bands of the time like Escape The Fate, Asking Alexandria, Bring Me The Horizon, etc.

Now even the post hardcore/metalcore bands look like hipsters.

Though there is another style in Japan called Visual Kei, which has been around much longer than scene. I don


Oh I guess I'm not really scene then  ;D my hair looked more like this than anything

http://creativefan.com/important/cf/2012/10/scene-hairstyles-for-guys/spikey-mens.jpg

Except more round than square, if you catch my drift  ;D

By 2009-10 I remember scene was dead though. Most kids like me were dressing neon or preppy/metrosexual. And my hair was always short that year, girls liked me with short hair, even though I'm gay I'm inclined to agree with them  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 8:51 pm


Chug! Chug! Chug! Chug! Chug!


He should come over to Canada. Legal drinking age here is 18/19.  Chug chug chug!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 8:55 pm


Although to be fair 2001 borns are probably the last to have vague memories of when kid culture was leaning Y, since they were 3-4 in 2004-2005.

I guess H.S Grad Class Wise you could look at it like this:

C/O 1995 - C/O 1998: Ultimate XY Cusp/Main Transformers Era Kids (Mid-Late 80's)

C/O 1999 - C/O 2004: Early Y/Main Neon Era Kids (Late 80's/Early 90's)

C/O 2005 - C/O 2009: Core Y/Main Grunge Era Kids (Mid-Late 90's)

C/O 2010 - C/O 2015: Late Y/Main Y2K Era Kids (Very Late 90's/Early-Mid 00's)

C/O 2016 - C/O 2019: YZ Cusp/Main Hannah Montana Era Kids (Mid-Late 00's)

C/O 2020 & After: Z

Class of 1995-Class of 1998 X/Y cusp
Class of 2000-Class of 2004 Early Y
Fixed!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 8:56 pm


Hahaha, yeah, fashion is so different now, we'd all definitely look out of place just with our hair  ;D

I like hipster/2010s fashion more than 2000s fashion in general, but that's just my opinion. Well, it depends on type of hipster, the stuff you see today with the manbuns and the untrimmed beards? Ew. Early 2010s trimmed beard and undercuts/pompadours look fantastic to me though. Again, all just my opinion.


Hey that's fine. At least you're able to tolerate today's fashion. And I'll never be able to understand where the trend have having untrimmed beards came from. I mean if someone has a beard then that's fine, but why oh why did it become part of today's fashion?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 9:02 pm


I was mostly referring to those whose were in their childhoods for all of the Y2K years. 1995 born were the last the have their childhoods for the entire Y2K era (they were 3 in 1998 which is the start of the millennium era which means their first childhood memories would be of the Y2K cultural era). Not only that but they also began school in 2000 which is the millennial year. Y2K means 2000 (when talking about the exact year and not the era) which is when someone from 1995 would've started school. But if we're talking about Late '90s-Early '00s kids as a whole then it's 1989-1996. 1989 are the first of the late '90s kids. And 1996 are the last of the early '00s kids. Again this is just my opinion which is no way resembles an actual fact. I could be dead wrong for all I know.

Well, I am a 1995 born and I was indeed 5 during most of the 2000-01, which is peak childhood! :)  but since I'm from Missouri, I was in kindergarten the next school year though. So it's weird. ;D ;D ;D  I wouldn't go by what grade you were in during the school year; I would go by how old you were during the school year!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 9:07 pm


Hey that's fine. At least you're able to tolerate today's fashion. And I'll never be able to understand where the trend have having untrimmed beards came from. I mean if someone has a beard then that's fine, but why oh why did it become part of today's fashion?


It started with Movember. Most people realized they look really good with a beard lol. I think Ifirst heard of Movember in 2010.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 9:11 pm


Well, I am a 1995 born and I was indeed 5 during most of the 2000-01, which is peak childhood! :)  but since I'm from Missouri, I was in kindergarten the next school year though. So it's weird. ;D ;D ;D  I wouldn't go by what grade you were in during the school year; I would go by how old you were during the school year!


That could work. But age can be weird at times. I was born in the the summer. So when it comes to age I will be the same age for the entire school year. For example in Kindergarten I was age 5 for the entire school year and wouldn't age to 6 until after the school year ended. If you were born in the late part then you'd be 6 for the whole year. If you were in the early part then you'd be 5 and 6 for the school year. And things then get weird when you take in consideration that different parts of the world have different rules. I tend to base things on both age and grade. I was always curious on know what it's like to start school a year late due to being born in the fall.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 9:15 pm


It started with Movember. Most people realized they look really good with a beard lol. I think Ifirst heard of Movember in 2010.


I didn't hear about Movember until maybe 2011/2012. Now that I think about it in the year 2010 I wasn't paying much attention to culture. I'd see people taking part in the latest trends while I'm being too lazy to get with the times.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 9:21 pm


That could work. But age can be weird at times. I was born in the the summer. So when it comes to age I will be the same age for the entire school year. For example in Kindergarten I was age 5 for the entire school year and wouldn't age to 6 until after the school year ended. If you were born in the late part then you'd be 6 for the whole year. If you were in the early part then you'd be 5 and 6 for the school year. And things then get weird when you take in consideration that different parts of the world have different rules. I tend to base things on both age and grade. I was always curious on know what it's like to start school a year late due to being born in the fall.


Oh man, I was just talking with mqg96 about this. I don't like using graduating class because I'm born early 93 and graduated 2010, which is apparently completely batsh!t insane in the US. It's normal here though.  :D so it's not always accurate, especially if someone skipped a grade or their parents just sent them to school late.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 9:47 pm


Oh man, I was just talking with mqg96 about this. I don't like using graduating class because I'm born early 93 and graduated 2010, which is apparently completely batsh!t insane in the US. It's normal here though.  :D so it's not always accurate, especially if someone skipped a grade or their parents just sent them to school late.

Exactly!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 01/30/16 at 9:54 pm


He should come over to Canada. Legal drinking age here is 18/19.  Chug chug chug!


You guys and girls are so lucky!  :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 10:01 pm


Oh man, I was just talking with mqg96 about this. I don't like using graduating class because I'm born early 93 and graduated 2010, which is apparently completely batsh!t insane in the US. It's normal here though.  :D so it's not always accurate, especially if someone skipped a grade or their parents just sent them to school late.


As I mentioned before it's different depending on the person and things can get tricky when taking in consideration of that different parts of world have different rules. I use age and grades due to it helping me out when trying to figure things out or when trying to explain something, but I'm also aware that not every location follows the same rules. So I simply just adjust my age and grade rule so it can work for others based on whatever location they're from. I don't simply just base everything on how things were for me age and grade wise (I tend to do it for other things, but in most cases I'll always tell everyone that I'm mostly basing things from my own experiences). I'm from Florida so when I when I'm talking someone from a different state or region I always make sure that when basing things on age and grade I would explain to someone based on their location.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 10:10 pm


I think main Y2K era kids and the Late Y group should be separated. Y2K era means both late 90's & early 2000's combined together, but most of the Y2K culture is mainly late 90's culture. I think early 90's babies are the main Y2K era kids, or Classes of 2008-2012. With 1992 born's or Class of 2010 being the peak of it. I think you have to be in elementary school during the 1999-2000 school year in order to qualify as a Y2K kid. Classes of 2013-2015 had core childhood in the early 2000's, but had core childhood in the mid 2000's too and none in the late 90's. I wouldn't consider myself as a Y2K kid, but I'd rather say "both early 2000's & mid 2000's kid". Even by the time Class of 2015 were in 1st grade the Y2K era had ended and the core 2000's was in full effect, but at the same time it was still in the early to mid 2000's cultural transition.

That's debatable, but I'm going to have to STRONGLY disagree. I'd group the class of 2008 in with the late 80s babies, and the 2012 class I wouldn't exactly call them early 90s babies.
Class of 2009 and Class of 2010 are on the cusp of core and late Y, just my opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 10:15 pm


That's debatable, but I'm going to have to STRONGLY disagree. I'd group the class of 2008 in with the late 80s babies, and the 2012 class I wouldn't exactly call them early 90s babies.
Class of 2009 and Class of 2010 are on the cusp of core and late Y, just my opinion.


Class of 2009-2010 are can see as cusp. Class of 2012 would be late 1993 - 1994 born. Which is mid 90s babies along with say those from 1995 who'd also finish school in the early '10s (that is if they're class of 2013). I do agree.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 10:17 pm


Class of 2009-2010 are can see as cusp. Class of 2012 would be late 1993 - 1994 born. Which is mid 90s babies along with say those from 1995 who'd also finish school in the early '10s (that is if they're class of 2013). I do agree.

2014 class(late 1995-mid 1996) are mid 90s born as well.
Now the 2015 class that's debatable. Some could see them as mid others might view them as late.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 10:25 pm


2014 class(late 1995-mid 1996) are mid 90s born as well.
Now the 2015 class that's debatable. Some could see them as mid others might view them as late.


What do you see class of 2015 as? I tend to I see class of 2015 as late mostly since most of Class of 2015 would be 1997 born (although I'd see the late 1996 born as mid). But hey what do I know.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 10:29 pm


That's debatable, but I'm going to have to STRONGLY disagree. I'd group the class of 2008 in with the late 80s babies, and the 2012 class I wouldn't exactly call them early 90s babies.
Class of 2009 and Class of 2010 are on the cusp of core and late Y, just my opinion.


Late 80s babies are Y2K era kids as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 10:37 pm


Late 80s babies are Y2K era kids as well.

So you don't consider them to be Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Grunge era kids? I do.
And when you say late 80s babies, you mean 1987-1989/90 born right?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 10:45 pm


So you don't consider them to be Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Grunge era kids? I do.
And when you say late 80s babies, you mean 1987-1989/90 born right?


Oh, they might be those things as well.

I have a cousin born 1990, she was a kid with me during 1999-2001, she's definitely Y2K kid along with her mostly 1989 friends which I invited to my birthday parties.

They're Power Rangers kids too though, I was obsessed with Power Rangers in 97, they probably had it 93-97 but it's not like they werent kids during Y2K either.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/30/16 at 11:33 pm


Class of 2009-2010 are can see as cusp. Class of 2012 would be late 1993 - 1994 born. Which is mid 90s babies along with say those from 1995 who'd also finish school in the early '10s (that is if they're class of 2013). I do agree.



2014 class(late 1995-mid 1996) are mid 90s born as well.
Now the 2015 class that's debatable. Some could see them as mid others might view them as late.


What about the C/O 2011?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 11:51 pm


What about the C/O 2011?


I'm not sure. Would Class of 2011 be seen as late Y? I see late Y as those who graduated in the '10s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/31/16 at 12:05 am


What about the C/O 2011?

Class of 2011 is solid late Y.
Since you were born in September of 1993, I guess you'd be seen as an early 90s baby, but barely. If you graduated in 2012, you'd be seen as either early or mid 90s born.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/31/16 at 12:12 am


I'm not sure. Would Class of 2011 be seen as late Y? I see late Y as those who graduated in the '10s.



Class of 2011 is solid late Y.
Since you were born in September of 1993, I guess you'd be seen as an early 90s baby, but barely. If you graduated in 2012, you'd be seen as either early or mid 90s born.


Since Infinity and I were in between the C/Os 2009-10 and the C/Os 2012-13, I think we would be between core and late cusps as well; however, it might be difficult since we began HS in the late 00s and finished in the very early 10s.

I sure am one, but you're right that it would depend on the year they graduated HS. Even more, what would you consider early '93 people who graduated in 2012? I know plenty of them who were in that position.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 12:37 am

Infinity is 5 months older than me but I'm really a year older than her because I graduated 2010. Trippy  :D :D :D :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/31/16 at 12:52 am


Class of 2011 is solid late Y.
Since you were born in September of 1993, I guess you'd be seen as an early 90s baby, but barely. If you graduated in 2012, you'd be seen as either early or mid 90s born.


This is why I don't like going by graduation years. So I'm a mid 90s baby because I graduated in 2012. Yet mxcrashxm is a month older than me is an early 90s baby? Personally we were both born in late 1993, which is like a inbetween the early and mid 90s. I guess we're both early mid 90s babies. But the whole graduation year thing, would make it so that those born in 1994 could be considered "early 90s babies", because they may have graduated in 2011.

Honestly, I prefer going by age range, since most people can relate to those both a few years older and a few years younger, regardless of grade. Much less confusing than the whole "school year system". Personally I completely disregard graduation dates and school years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/31/16 at 1:05 am


Infinity is 5 months older than me but I'm really a year older than her because I graduated 2010. Trippy  :D :D :D :D


Yup, you and me were born in 1993 but you're actually 2 whole years older than me  :D

That's the power of the mighty graduation date! Forget those birth certificates, they're a lie! The only year that matters is the one on the high school diploma. In fact I got a couple of friends who are born in 1994, whom are a year older than me. They are such big, wise early 90s babies. I feel like such a little mid 90s baby in comparison to them  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/31/16 at 1:19 am

Age is just a number, the year you were born in is just a number as well, mental growth and the influence you got growing up is what matters the most. That's why graduation years are important to me, because of the friends you made, the peers, your learning development, etc. Nothing suddenly changes from the turn of December 31 to January 1. The change throughout the year is gradual. I mean even if you were born from July-December you're not going to be the age you're going to turn this year for most of the year. The age you'd be right now you are for most of the year. Only January-June born's are the real people who are going to be their upcoming age for most of the year. Which is why in the U.S. there are September cutoffs for a reason. But we're talking about the majority in the U.S., not the minority. Sure, you may have some people who skipped a grade, failed a grade, started early/late, other countries might have different school systems, etc. But again, I'm talking for the majority in the U.S. and even when it comes to generational technology, there might have been other countries who weren't on the same level as America, Canada, Japan, etc. yet at the time we were already more advanced than them. Like maybe whenever the internet became big here in America, maybe it didn't get real big in maybe India until 10 years after us. Which is why people from other countries who immigrated here may feel like they grew up different than many of us. My opinions are based off the majority in the U.S., but we're entitled to our own opinions.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/31/16 at 1:21 am


This is why I don't like going by graduation years. So I'm a mid 90s baby because I graduated in 2012. Yet mxcrashxm is a month older than me is an early 90s baby? Personally we were both born in late 1993, which is like a inbetween the early and mid 90s. I guess we're both early mid 90s babies. But the whole graduation year thing, would make it so that those born in 1994 could be considered "early 90s babies", because they may have graduated in 2011.

Honestly, I prefer going by age range, since most people can relate to those both a few years older and a few years younger, regardless of grade. Much less confusing than the whole "school year system". Personally I completely disregard graduation dates and school years.

Well to be fair; the only reason I said what I said was because.. I'm not sure if a late 93 baby is mid or early. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/31/16 at 1:28 am


Since Infinity and I were in between the C/Os 2009-10 and the C/Os 2012-13, I think we would be between core and late cusps as well; however, it might be difficult since we began HS in the late 00s and finished in the very early 10s.

I sure am one, but you're right that it would depend on the year they graduated HS. Even more, what would you consider early '93 people who graduated in 2012? I know plenty of them who were in that position.


They would be mid 90s babies, like me. You see, even though they are a few months older than you, they are actually a year younger than you because the high school diploma says so. The power of the graduation year is too powerful!  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/31/16 at 1:32 am


Well to be fair; the only reason I said what I said was because.. I'm not sure if a late 93 baby is mid or early. ;D


I'm not sure either. I guess it doesn't matter. We're all apart of the same generation in the end. I don't really care whether I'm considered early, middle, late, square, triangle, or a martian  :D

Same generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 10:54 am

I've forgotten half the people in my high school class honestly, I can't even remember their names if I can remember their faces  ;D and it was only 6 years ago!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 01/31/16 at 12:19 pm


I don'tsee a huge ddifference between someone born 2000 and my sister born 2005. Maybe it's because they're still kids. My cousin born 2000 is on Twitter all day fangirling over Justin Bieber and Shawn Mendes, making a billion tweets a day about them.  That's so Gen Z  ;D

Gen Z definitely starts somewhere in between 1991 - 1999, we are the digital natives.


I've always thought that using the "digital native" label as a cutoff point point in the Y/Z debate actually works pretty well. Personally, I think it's much less arbitrary than the "ability to remember 9/11" requirement, particularly since spending at least some part of your childhood without internet access is such a common trait among the great majority of Yers.

To simplify it as much as possible: if you have a clear memory of the first time you went online, then you're more likely than not a Millennial. I have a younger brother that was born in 1991, and he and nearly all of his friends can remember the first time they used the internet fairly easily (with most of them being somewhere between 6-10 at the time), so I'd say that '91 is pretty firmly in the Y camp. I'd even say that a fair few of you '93ers could probably remember having to adapt to using the net, supposing that your parents got a computer late (after all, there were many people that didn't get a computer until 1999 or later, including my parents). After that it gets iffier. Given the massive growth of the internet in the late '90s, I find it had to believe that the average kid born after 1994-95 would be able to remember a time without a computer. Of course, there are exceptions to everything.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/31/16 at 12:36 pm


This is why I don't like going by graduation years. So I'm a mid 90s baby because I graduated in 2012. Yet mxcrashxm is a month older than me is an early 90s baby? Personally we were both born in late 1993, which is like a inbetween the early and mid 90s. I guess we're both early mid 90s babies. But the whole graduation year thing, would make it so that those born in 1994 could be considered "early 90s babies", because they may have graduated in 2011.

Honestly, I prefer going by age range, since most people can relate to those both a few years older and a few years younger, regardless of grade. Much less confusing than the whole "school year system". Personally I completely disregard graduation dates and school years.
I go by this too! Most of my friends in my age range are between 19-20 and 25-26. It's definitely easier as it shows that we all part of the same cohort.


I'm not sure either. I guess it doesn't matter. We're all apart of the same generation in the end. I don't really care whether I'm considered early, middle, late, square, triangle, or a martian  :D

Same generation.



True on that. Despite the cohorts, there are events that will connect us together no matter what. There's a reason generations are about every 20 years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/31/16 at 1:19 pm


I don'tsee a huge ddifference between someone born 2000 and my sister born 2005. Maybe it's because they're still kids. My cousin born 2000 is on Twitter all day fangirling over Justin Bieber and Shawn Mendes, making a billion tweets a day about them.  That's so Gen Z  ;D

Gen Z definitely starts somewhere in between 1991 - 1999, we are the digital natives.



I've always thought that using the "digital native" label as a cutoff point point in the Y/Z debate actually works pretty well. Personally, I think it's much less arbitrary than the "ability to remember 9/11" requirement, particularly since spending at least some part of your childhood without internet access is such a common trait among the great majority of Yers.

To simplify it as much as possible: if you have a clear memory of the first time you went online, then you're more likely than not a Millennial. I have a younger brother that was born in 1991, and he and nearly all of his friends can remember the first time they used the internet fairly easily (with most of them being somewhere between 6-10 at the time), so I'd say that '91 is pretty firmly in the Y camp. I'd even say that a fair few of you '93ers could probably remember having to adapt to using the net, supposing that your parents got a computer late (after all, there were many people that didn't get a computer until 1999 or later, including my parents). After that it gets iffier. Given the massive growth of the internet in the late '90s, I find it had to believe that the average kid born after 1994-95 would be able to remember a time without a computer. Of course, there are exceptions to everything.
There are more factors than just being a digital native. First, there are education, social, economic, parental and characteristics. For social, the Homelanders (Z), accept people who are in the non-mainstream for who they are; for education, the staff are boomers and Xers and it consists of more difficult subjects in the curriculum; for economics, they don't remember a time before the Recession and I read some articles stating they rather save money than spend it all; for the parental, the parents are mainly the 13th Generation (X) although there are a minority of them who have Boomer (younger) and/or Millennial (older) parents as well; last but not least, the characteristics of the Plurals (Z), have 8 second attention spans; more likely to use Instagram and Snapchat than Facebook and Twitter; they have only known a digital world; and want to be entrepreneurs when the majority enter the workplace.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/31/16 at 3:00 pm


Be 21 in October! :D  Yikes! :o


You've got another 20 more years to catch up to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/31/16 at 3:03 pm


I've forgotten half the people in my high school class honestly, I can't even remember their names if I can remember their faces  ;D and it was only 6 years ago!


I can't even remember who was in my class 25 years ago.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 3:05 pm


I've always thought that using the "digital native" label as a cutoff point point in the Y/Z debate actually works pretty well. Personally, I think it's much less arbitrary than the "ability to remember 9/11" requirement, particularly since spending at least some part of your childhood without internet access is such a common trait among the great majority of Yers.

To simplify it as much as possible: if you have a clear memory of the first time you went online, then you're more likely than not a Millennial. I have a younger brother that was born in 1991, and he and nearly all of his friends can remember the first time they used the internet fairly easily (with most of them being somewhere between 6-10 at the time), so I'd say that '91 is pretty firmly in the Y camp. I'd even say that a fair few of you '93ers could probably remember having to adapt to using the net, supposing that your parents got a computer late (after all, there were many people that didn't get a computer until 1999 or later, including my parents). After that it gets iffier. Given the massive growth of the internet in the late '90s, I find it had to believe that the average kid born after 1994-95 would be able to remember a time without a computer. Of course, there are exceptions to everything.


That makes sense to me. I feel like a Digital Native since I got my computer in late 1996/early 1997 when I was barely 4. I remember the computer being brand new and everything, but I don't really remember if it had Internet or not. I know for sure we had Internet by 1999.

So do you see 1999 when kid culture started being Gen Z focused? That N64, Windows 98, Pokemon/Digimon era.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 3:19 pm


I can't even remember who was in my class 25 years ago.


I wonder if I'll say the same thing 20 years from now. I've already forgotten half  :o

But I have almost everyone on Facebook, so I probably won't ever really forget them even if I barely go on Facebook anymore.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/31/16 at 3:58 pm


To simplify it as much as possible: if you have a clear memory of the first time you went online, then you're more likely than not a Millennial.


I obviously don't remember a time before computers, but I do remember the first time I went online though. I wonder what you mean by this, because even though the internet was already widespread by the mid/late 90's, it didn't become a big necessity until the mid or late 2000's. Like, the kids of today who are in elementary school and even middle school too, probably first used the internet when they were toddlers without realizing it. I remember when I started using the internet regularly which was in 2002 as I've said many times, but our family had Windows XP and broadband by then, prior to that year we had Windows 98 and dial-up. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/31/16 at 4:16 pm


That makes sense to me. I feel like a Digital Native since I got my computer in late 1996/early 1997 when I was barely 4. I remember the computer being brand new and everything, but I don't really remember if it had Internet or not. I know for sure we had Internet by 1999.

So do you see 1999 when kid culture started being Gen Z focused? That N64, Windows 98, Pokemon/Digimon era.


I remember playing a Blues Clues Game on the computer when I was 5, that was the bomb!

Personally for me computers have always been around. However the Internet is a bit harder to pin out because I remember first personally using it in when I was 5 to play games online on the computer (one those sites being Yahoolagins!) but at the same time I don't think I was necessarily born into Internet. If I was on the computer I always opted to play physical computer games or (when we got XP) playing Solitaire or Pinball. Like many others, I honestly didn't start to use the Internet the way I use it today until the late 00's.

Also the late 90's & early 00's are definitely still Y. Especially for the reasons I laid about above of my personal experience, I would expect it to be pretty universal for most others here. For instance, when's the last time you heard a commercial marketed towards kids using the tag line at the end "Ask your parents permission before going online"!?. Exactly ;D


I obviously don't remember a time before computers, but I do remember the first time I went online though. I wonder what you mean by this, because even though the internet was already widespread by the mid/late 90's, it didn't become a big necessity until the mid or late 2000's. Like, the kids of today who are in elementary school and even middle school too, probably first used the internet when they were toddlers without realizing it. I remember when I started using the internet regularly which was in 2002 as I've said many times, but our family had Windows XP and broadband by then, prior to that year we had Windows 98 and dial-up. 


Yeah I could pretty much relate to this. We were Web 1.0 Era Kids

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 4:23 pm


I've always thought that using the "digital native" label as a cutoff point point in the Y/Z debate actually works pretty well. Personally, I think it's much less arbitrary than the "ability to remember 9/11" requirement, particularly since spending at least some part of your childhood without internet access is such a common trait among the great majority of Yers.

To simplify it as much as possible: if you have a clear memory of the first time you went online, then you're more likely than not a Millennial. I have a younger brother that was born in 1991, and he and nearly all of his friends can remember the first time they used the internet fairly easily (with most of them being somewhere between 6-10 at the time), so I'd say that '91 is pretty firmly in the Y camp. I'd even say that a fair few of you '93ers could probably remember having to adapt to using the net, supposing that your parents got a computer late (after all, there were many people that didn't get a computer until 1999 or later, including my parents). After that it gets iffier. Given the massive growth of the internet in the late '90s, I find it had to believe that the average kid born after 1994-95 would be able to remember a time without a computer. Of course, there are exceptions to everything.


Internet was already seen as a big/popular thing by the mid-late '90s. But there is a difference for when something becomes popular to have just due being the latest new thing. And being popular to have due to being a necessity. Up to say the mid '00s or earlier the internet was not something that a person needed to have. You'd still be able to live without having access to a computer at the time. By the late '00s to present a person is usually expected to have online access. Back in the mid '00s or earlier it's easy to say that teens and adults were online a lot, but not kids. If we're just talking about the popularity of internet  as a whole then even those from 1992-1993 would seen as digital natives since Internet was rising by 1996/1997 (heck some places even say that internet got popular by 1993). If we're talking about a time period where internet became a requirement for everyone to have then I'd say digital natives would be late '90s/early '00s born.  When it comes to internet I also base things on the era. Such as if someone has been using internet during the Web 1.0 era (2003/4 to sometime earlier) and can remember when things such as dial and such were more common than broadband (which was in 2004  and earlier)  then they'd be seen as Millennials. To simplify it if you've been exposed to the web in it's early days from the around 1995/6 - 2003/4 then you've been exposed to Web 1.0. During the late '90s - early '00s most kids would've learned about computers from schools if not due to their parents buying one. Kids who used Web 1.0 (Kids from the late '80s - mid '90s) are different from those who used 2.0 (Kids from late'90s - early '00s) which is different from those who used 3.0 (Kids today). Things also get tricky when you also take in consideration that people get computers at different times. So certain ideas/rules can't apply to everyone.

Web 1.0 era kids = Late Y
Web 2.0 era kids = Early Z
Web 3.0 era kids = Core Z
Although this can get confusing when using this logic mostly since Web 1.0 lasted for around 10 years from 1993/4 - 2003/4 meaning that even those who're core Y would've used Web 1.0 along with late Y. Web 2.0 was short so it's easier for me to make my view who'd be kids using it by that time. And Web 3.0 is still going on. Just comparing the eras of the Web and existed with them is enough to separate people when basing things on the time period they went online for the first time.

But all this is mostly just if you believe in the internet rule for millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 5:03 pm

1999 being the start of post-Millennial culture doesn't really make sense to me. When I think of kids who actually grew up with technology, I think of kids who grew up with tech that was pretty well integrated into society and much more accessible to use; not having to wait 10 minutes for your internet to boot up or waiting for your tape to rewind. Y2K era kids will remember two things: how in the late 90's and early 00's stuff like the internet was new and seen as a "useful tool" that was used sparingly and wasn't always very convenient (i.e. Discman - CD or Cassette, a VCR, Dial-Up) and then they'll remember the big change mid-late 00's when technology started getting easier to use and more convenient with the rise of web 2.0, DVD's, the iPod and the popularity of Broadband.

In my opinion the true Millennials would be born from:
1981-1997

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 5:09 pm


1999 being the start of post-Millennial culture doesn't really make sense to me. When I think of kids who actually grew up with technology, I think of kids who grew up with tech that was pretty well integrated into society and much more accessible to use; not having to wait 10 minutes for your internet to boot up or waiting for your tape to rewind. Y2K era kids will remember two things: how in the late 90's and early 00's stuff like the internet was new and seen as a "useful tool" that was used sparingly and wasn't always very convenient and they'll remember how in the mid-late 00's technology started getting easier to use and more convenient with the rise of DVD's, the iPod and the popularity of Broadband.

In my opinion the true Millennials would be born from:
1981-1997


Today's culture can be see as Gen Z kid culture. If we go back to the late '90s - early '00s where'd we see that a lot of the stuff we have today either didn't exist or was in a infancy state. I see millennials as around 1982 - 1996 if I go by the Web era rule I sometimes use. Basically it's simple as comparing what kids have today in terms of tech and compare it to the tech you used a child. If you see big differences then you'd understand where I'm coming from. To me Gen Z kid culture doesn't start until the mid-late '00s (Gen Alpha is now being born, but due to all of them being under 5 it's safe to say that Gen Alpha kid culture won't begin until the late '10s). Anything before that is Gen Y kid culture.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 5:16 pm


Today's culture can be see as Gen Z kid culture. If we go back to the late '90s - early '00s where'd we see that a lot of the stuff we have today either didn't exist or was in a infancy state. I see millennials as around 1982 - 1996 if I go by the Web era rule I sometimes use. Basically it's simple as comparing what kids have today in terms of tech and compare it to the tech you used a child. If you see big differences then you'd understand where I'm coming from. To me Gen Z kid culture doesn't start until the mid-late '00s. Anything before that is Gen Y kid culture.


I agree. I think around 2004-2006 is when the post-Millennial culture begins. Technology and television changed a lot during this time. A kid who is going to look back to the late 90's/early 00's and think about the tech they used and compare it to what they use today, he's gonna think it's ancient and much more inconvenient!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/31/16 at 5:30 pm


1999 being the start of post-Millennial culture doesn't really make sense to me. When I think of kids who actually grew up with technology, I think of kids who grew up with tech that was pretty well integrated into society and much more accessible to use; not having to wait 10 minutes for your internet to boot up or waiting for your tape to rewind. Y2K era kids will remember two things: how in the late 90's and early 00's stuff like the internet was new and seen as a "useful tool" that was used sparingly and wasn't always very convenient (i.e. Discman - CD or Cassette, a VCR, Dial-Up) and then they'll remember the big change mid-late 00's when technology started getting easier to use and more convenient with the rise of web 2.0, DVD's, the iPod and the popularity of Broadband.

In my opinion the true Millennials would be born from:
1981-1997


Makes sense. But is it possible to say that 1998-2000 babies were late Y/early Z cusps, since they were at least five in 2003-2005?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 5:35 pm


Makes sense. But is it possible to say that 1998-2000 babies were late Y/early Z cusps, since they were at least five in 2003-2005?


2004 is already cuspy for kid culture. I'd say 1998 is cusp leaning Z, and 1997 is cusp leaning Y if we go with 2006 being the start of Gen Z kid culture, and 2004 being the Y/Z cusp.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 5:36 pm


I agree. I think around 2004-2006 is when the post-Millennial culture begins. Technology and television changed a lot during this time. A kid who is going to look back to the late 90's/early 00's and think about the tech they used and compare it to what they use today, he's gonna think it's ancient and much more inconvenient!


Well yeah in the late 90s/early 00s
- VHS was still popular
- Ipods weren't popular
- Internet was still in Web 1.0
- Dial Up was more commonly used
- Smartphones didn't exist
- instead of Facebook or Twitter people used things like AIM
- Instead of downloading music people used CD players
- Teens/Adults had things like Nokia phones
- Tablets didn't exist
- Kids didn't have phones and such at young ages
- Napster was popular
- No one used things like Netflix or Hulu
- Youtube didn't exist
- CRT TVs with 480i standard definition was mainly used as High Definition wasn't popular yet

And many more.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/31/16 at 5:37 pm


2004 is already cuspy for kid culture. I'd say 1998 is cusp leaning Z, and 1997 is cusp leaning Y if we go with 2006 being the start of Gen Z kid culture, and 2004 being the Y/Z cusp.


Okay.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 5:41 pm


2004 is already cuspy for kid culture. I'd say 1998 is cusp leaning Z, and 1997 is cusp leaning Y if we go with 2006 being the start of Gen Z kid culture, and 2004 being the Y/Z cusp.


Yep! 2004 could be the Y/Z cusp year. 2004 is cusp leaning to Y. 2005 is cusp leaning to Z. And 2006 is Z. This is how I see it when thinking about kid culture.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 5:44 pm


Well yeah in the late 90s/early 00s
- VHS was still popular
- Ipods weren't popular
- Internet was still in Web 1.0
- Dial Up was more commonly used
- Smartphones didn't exist
- instead of Facebook or Twitter people used things like AIM
- Instead of downloading music people used CD players
- Teens/Adults had things like Nokia phones
- Tablets didn't exist
- Kids didn't have phones and such at young ages
- Napster was popular
- No one used things like Netflix or Hulu
- Youtube didn't exist
- CRT TVs with 480i standard definition was mainly used as High Definition wasn't popular yet

And many more.


All this. Myspace didn't even exist in 2000-2002! Late Millennials should remember stuff like this and the transition in 2004-2005 to things like:

- iPods exploding in popularity
- DVD taking over VHS
- web 2.0
- kids getting phones at younger ages
- Myspace
- The rise of HDTV
- iTunes and downloading being on the rise
- The popularity of XP over 98

All my younger 2nd/3rd cousins remember this change so I'm pretty inclined to consider them true Millennials. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 5:51 pm


All this. Myspace didn't even exist in 2000-2002! Late Millennials should remember stuff like this and the transition in 2004-2005 to things like:

- iPods exploding in popularity
- DVD taking over VHS
- web 2.0
- kids getting phones at younger ages
- Myspace
- The rise of HDTV
- iTunes and downloading being on the rise
- The popularity of XP over 98

All my younger 2nd/3rd cousins remember this change so I'm pretty inclined to consider them true Millennials.


Yeah, if you were old enough to see the changes as we transitioned to Gen Z kid culture then you'd be a millennial. If most of your childhood took place after 2004 or 2005 then you'd be see as a Gen Z due to not experiencing the kid culture of the late '90s or early '00s. All those points you made make sense to me.

What's funny is that Myspace existed in 2003, but I'm not sure if anyone of you even heard about it at that time due to it not existing for most of 2003 (it launched in August) and it not being popular until 2005 (which probably one of the reasons why 2005 is a cusp year that leans to Z). I didn't hear about it until 2006.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 5:55 pm


Yeah, if you were old enough to see the changes as we transitioned to Gen Z kid culture then you'd be a millennial. If most of your childhood took place after 2004 or 2005 then you'd be see as a Gen Z due to not experiencing the kid culture of the late '90s or early '00s. All those points you made make sense to me.

What's funny is that Myspace existed in 2003, but I'm not sure if anyone of you even heard about it at that time due to it not existing for most of 2003 (it launched in August) and it not being popular until 2005 (which probably one of the reasons why 2005 is a cusp year that leans to Z). I didn't hear about it until 2006.


I don't know if MySpace was very significant for kid culture. Did kids have MySpace then? I'd say it's Gen Z because you have the Xbox 360 and DS/PSP, so playing games online is very commonplace, you also had MMOs like Club Penguin and RuneScape.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 6:01 pm


Yeah, if you were old enough to see the changes as we transitioned to Gen Z kid culture then you'd be a millennial. If most of your childhood took place after 2004 or 2005 then you'd be see as a Gen Z due to not experiencing the kid culture of the late '90s or early '00s. All those points you made make sense to me.

What's funny is that Myspace existed in 2003, but I'm not sure if anyone of you even heard about it at that time due to it not existing for most of 2003 (it launched in August) and it not being popular until 2005 (which probably one of the reasons why 2005 is a cusp year that leans to Z). I didn't hear about it until 2006.


Yeah, definitely. All my cousins born in the 90's remember the big changes. They remember me in the late 90's/early 00's bringing over my CD's and my VHS tapes, us going on the computer (dial-up, Windows 98), when the PS1 and PS2 co-existed with each other, how I didn't even have a cell phone at the time but their parents had the Nokia phones, etc. And they remember all the changes in 2004 when technology got more advanced and accessible as stated above.

First time I heard about it was maybe late 2004. This was when a lot of sh!tty fake-Emo bands were saying "check us out on myspace!!"

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 6:02 pm


I don't know if MySpace was very significant for kid culture. Did kids have MySpace then? I'd say it's Gen Z because you have the Xbox 360 and DS/PSP, so playing games online is very commonplace, you also had MMOs like Club Penguin and RuneScape.


I doubt it. Back then it was mostly popular with teens/adults who moved away from things like AIM. In most cases back then kids didn't even use computers as much as they do today. Heck back then I doubt a kid even knew what "social media" was. In terms of gaming yeah 7th gen consoles such as the Xbox 360, Ps3, DS, and PSP would be Gen Z kid culture. Introduction of consoles with novelties such as motion controls (Wiimote, Playstation Move, Kinect), Online gaming got more popular, games are now in HD etc. And I'd include the 8th console gen as a part of Gen Z culture with it's introduction of things like Virtual Reality becoming a bigger thing for consoles. And nowadays a lot of kids would be aware of social media things such as Facebook, Tumblr, or Twitter. Gen Alpha kid culture won't start until probably the late '10s/early '20s due to all them being under 5 so I have no idea what that kid culture is like, but I am sure that Gen Z kid culture is still going on.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 6:10 pm


Yeah, definitely. All my cousins born in the 90's remember the big changes. They remember me in the late 90's/early 00's bringing over my CD's and my VHS tapes, us going on the computer (dial-up, Windows 98), when the PS1 and PS2 co-existed with each other, how I didn't even have a cell phone at the time but their parents had the Nokia phones, etc. And they remember all the changes in 2004 when technology got more advanced and accessible as stated above.

First time I heard about it was maybe late 2004. This was when a lot of sh!tty fake-Emo bands were saying "check us out on myspace!!"


Yeah, it was around that time myspace started becoming a big part of culture. I see a lot of people born in the early-mid '90s who have tons of memories from the late '90s/early '00s as it was where a majority of their childhood took place. You can compare them to kids born in the 2000s or 2010s and see a big difference.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 01/31/16 at 6:10 pm


All this. Myspace didn't even exist in 2000-2002! Late Millennials should remember stuff like this and the transition in 2004-2005 to things like:

- iPods exploding in popularity
- DVD taking over VHS
- web 2.0
- kids getting phones at younger ages
- Myspace
- The rise of HDTV
- iTunes and downloading being on the rise
- The popularity of XP over 98

All my younger 2nd/3rd cousins remember this change so I'm pretty inclined to consider them true Millennials.


I don't remember HDTV receiving any mainstream recognition until 2005-06. The same can be said for MySpace and iTunes. I remember XP taking over 98 in 2003. I think your memories are blending in a bit.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 6:13 pm


I don't remember HDTV receiving any mainstream recognition until 2005-06. The same can be said for MySpace and iTunes. I remember XP taking over 98 in 2003. I think your memories are blending in a bit.


iTunes was popular in 2004/05 because you needed iTunes to sync your music to your iPod.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 6:15 pm


Yeah, it was around that time myspace started becoming a big part of culture. I see a lot of people born in the early-mid '90s who have tons of memories from the late '90s/early '00s as it was where a majority of their childhood took place. You can compare them to kids born in the 2000s or 2010s and see a big difference.


Yeah, it's a pretty huge difference! All that technology was a big change.


I don't remember HDTV receiving any mainstream recognition until 2005-06. The same can be said for MySpace and iTunes. I remember XP taking over 98 in 2003. I think your memories are blending in a bit.


I remember iTunes and Myspace getting big sometime in 2004. Everything else (HDTV and XP) seems right, though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/31/16 at 6:42 pm


I don't remember HDTV receiving any mainstream recognition until 2005-06. The same can be said for MySpace and iTunes. I remember XP taking over 98 in 2003. I think your memories are blending in a bit.


I agree with you on Myspace and iTunes.

XP seemed like the modern computer to me by 2002, however, I could see it being the majority in people's homes by 2003 or 2004, even though most businesses or schools still used 98 at the time.

Even in 2005 through 2007 it seemed like most people still stuck with standard definition TV's or the classic wide screen TV's that weren't HD.

2008 was the year I started noticing HDTV's getting real popular from what I remember.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 6:51 pm

By 2008 HDTVs were more popular than SD. 2006 you would see them around though. If not HD, CRT TVs were definitely on their way out and replaced with flatscreens.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 01/31/16 at 6:54 pm


By 2008 HDTVs were more popular than SD. 2006 you would see them around though. If not HD, CRT TVs were definitely on their way out and replaced with flatscreens.

Yeah that's about right. We got our first HD television set in 2008 and loved the results. And the picture was really sharp!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 6:59 pm

I can see the mid '00s as when HD began to rise. By the late '00s HD was pretty much the standard when talking about television. Before that people were still using 480i SD quality TVs which has been used since the '80s and '90s if I recall correctly. Early '00s was still when CRT dominated. Mid '00s was the transition. And late '00s is when the transition ended leaving HD TVs as the norm for many people. I got my first HDTV sometime in late 2008 or early 2009.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 6:59 pm

My buddy first got a big flat screen HDTV around 2006 and he got a Wii for his wife. What an awful system! >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 7:03 pm


Yeah that's about right. We got our first HD television set in 2008 and loved the results. And the picture was really sharp!


Haha yes, we got ours for Christmas 2007. It was beautiful.

I used to go on gaming forums a lot back in 2006-2007. I remember even then people complaining that the Wii wasn't HD compatible. I told them to "just use your SDTV then". They told me once you go HD it's impossible to go back. I thought they were just being really whiny and snobby.

Turns out they were right  ;D  :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 7:03 pm


My buddy first got a big flat screen HDTV around 2006 and he got a Wii for his wife. What an awful system! >:(


HA! I like the Wii, but I was upset that most of the games were shovelware party games or games with bad use of the wireless controls.  :-\\

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 7:07 pm


HA! I like the Wii, but I was upset that most of the games were shovelware party games or games with bad use of the wireless controls.  :-\\


I remember he bought it because his wife kept bitching at him about how they're going to work on getting in shape. He invited me over and we played Wii Sports. I bet I looked like an asshole swinging my arms around like that! I won every game, though. I truly am the king of all things! :D

Needless to say, they didn't loose any weight playing with their Wii.

Also, the wireless controller is the worst at detecting movements! I remember I kept swinging it and it'd be connected to the nunchuck and it whipped me in my... uhh.. "area" a whole bunch of times. Hurt like a bitch that thing!


Haha yes, we got ours for Christmas 2007. It was beautiful.

I used to go on gaming forums a lot back in 2006-2007. I remember even then people complaining that the Wii wasn't HD compatible. I told them to "just use your SDTV then". They told me once you go HD it's impossible to go back. I thought they were just being really whiny and snobby.

Turns out they were right  ;D  :-X


But SDTV is the superior way to watch Television.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/31/16 at 7:10 pm


I can see the mid '00s as when HD began to rise. By the late '00s HD was pretty much the standard when talking about television. Before that people were still using 480i SD quality TVs which has been used since the '80s and '90s if I recall correctly. Early '00s was still when CRT dominated. Mid '00s was the transition. And late '00s is when the transition ended leaving HD TVs as the norm for many people. I got my first HDTV sometime in late 2008 or early 2009.


I remember how in the mid to late 2000's, or basically 2005-2007, how there wasn't just CRT-TV's anymore with the old SDTV quality like the early 2000's & earlier. There were more higher quality TV's on flat screens or wide screens, but at the same time it was NOT HD yet. It was still standard definition. By 2008 that's when the HDTV on flatscreens started getting real big.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 7:16 pm


I remember he bought it because his wife kept bitching at him about how they're going to work on getting in shape. He invited me over and we played Wii Sports. I bet I looked like an asshole swinging my arms around like that! I won every game, though. I truly am the king of all things! :D

Needless to say, they didn't loose any weight playing with their Wii.

Also, the wireless controller is the worst at detecting movements! I remember I kept swinging it and it'd be connected to the nunchuck and it whipped me in my... uhh.. "area" a whole bunch of times. Hurt like a bitch that thing!

But SDTV is the superior way to watch Television.


Naw man, SDTVs are great for playing old video games but watching TV shows?  ;D it's almost impossible.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 7:17 pm

How dare anyone insult Wii Sports  >:( that's practically my favourite 7th Gen game. I'll fight you Jordan, and beat you at Wii Boxing.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 7:27 pm


Naw man, SDTVs are great for playing old video games but watching TV shows?  ;D it's almost impossible.


SDTV is the truest way to watch TV. HDTV is just the FBI's way to brainwash you!


How dare anyone insult Wii Sports  >:( that's practically my favourite 7th Gen game. I'll fight you Jordan, and beat you at Wii Boxing.


But I am the king at Wii Sports! I could smoke any sucka in a game of boxing. You can't step up to the almighty King Jordan, Master of Xtreme! >:(

My favorite Wii game is definitely Wario Ware: Smooth Moves (smooth like myself).

http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m438l3Cl7b1ro8ysbo1_500.jpg

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 7:56 pm


SDTV is the truest way to watch TV. HDTV is just the FBI's way to brainwash you!

But I am the king at Wii Sports! I could smoke any sucka in a game of boxing. You can't step up to the almighty King Jordan, Master of Xtreme! >:(

My favorite Wii game is definitely Wario Ware: Smooth Moves (smooth like myself).

http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m438l3Cl7b1ro8ysbo1_500.jpg


Bruv people had to go to the dentist after I was done with them in Wii Boxing  >:( Nintendo should've made a mercy rule in Boxing like they did in Baseball too.

LOL the Warioware game was extremely strange  ;D Those minigames made no sense.

My favourite Wii game must've been Mario Strikers Charged. It's the most Xtreme! Mario game by far even though it came out 2007 lol.

S0YX6Mag--8

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 8:05 pm


Bruv people had to go to the dentist after I was done with them in Wii Boxing  >:( Nintendo should've made a mercy rule in Boxing like they did in Baseball too.

LOL the Warioware game was extremely strange  ;D Those minigames made no sense.

My favourite Wii game must've been Mario Strikers Charged. It's the most Xtreme! Mario game by far even though it came out 2007 lol.

S0YX6Mag--8


People had to get surgery after my mighty boxing skills showed them! The toughest boxer to have ever lived...

But they ruled! Man, that game was sweet. The Wii had peaked with that one.

Woah! Xtreme! in 2007? How out of place. Everyone was riding the lame Edgar Allen Poe Black Parade by then! >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/31/16 at 8:10 pm

I understand that technology is a factor that determines which generation one is apart of; however, it's not the only thing. In fact, all of the older generations were not even defined by technology, they were defined by the events, characteristics, and miscellaneous. For example, Boomers have characteristics such as being entitled and greedy; the events are the Vietnam War, Free Love, and Disco; miscellaneous: parents are the GI Generation, mainly conservative, and want to postpone retirement.

For Millennials, the characteristics are optimism, narcissism and marshmallow (being too soft); the events are Y2K, 9/11, Iraq War, and the Gay Marriage ruling; miscellaneous: parents are mainly Boomers, mostly liberal, and "awarded trophies"

Yes, technology is one of the factors, but keep in mind it's not the only one.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 9:43 pm


People had to get surgery after my mighty boxing skills showed them! The toughest boxer to have ever lived...

But they ruled! Man, that game was sweet. The Wii had peaked with that one.

Woah! Xtreme! in 2007? How out of place. Everyone was riding the lame Edgar Allen Poe Black Parade by then! >:(


Are you talking about the My Chemical Romance song? That was one of my favourites!  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/31/16 at 9:44 pm


I understand that technology is a factor that determines which generation one is apart of; however, it's not the only thing. In fact, all of the older generations were not even defined by technology, they were defined by the events, characteristics, and miscellaneous. For example, Boomers have characteristics such as being entitled and greedy; the events are the Vietnam War, Free Love, and Disco; miscellaneous: parents are the GI Generation, mainly conservative, and want to postpone retirement.

For Millennials, the characteristics are optimism, narcissism and marshmallow (being too soft); the events are Y2K, 9/11, Iraq War, and the Gay Marriage ruling; miscellaneous: parents are mainly Boomers, mostly liberal, and "awarded trophies"

Yes, technology is one of the factors, but keep in mind it's not the only one.

Also Generation Jones/Early X as well!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 10:42 pm


Are you talking about the My Chemical Romance song? That was one of my favourites!  ;D


I am. :P The only My Chemical Romance you could ever catch me listening to is anything off their first album! None of that make up and Edgar Allen Poe-Andy Warhol artsy crap! >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/01/16 at 7:53 am

- instead of Facebook or Twitter people used things like AIM


That was our form of communication back then.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: TheKid99 on 02/01/16 at 8:18 am

Wow I am off this board for two days and I miss a whole debate about when my generation starts...
Generation X late 1964-mid 1979
I believe the Millennial generation is late 1979 through mid 1997.
Generation Z starts in late 1997-201?
Classes of 1996-1999 are cusp X/Y (Late 1977-Mid 1981)
Classes of 2000-2014 are full Y(Late 1981-Mid 1996)
Classes of 2015-2018 (Late 1996-Mid 2000) are Y/Z Cusp 
2015 leaning Y with slight Z characteristics
2016 leaning Y but slightly leaning Z
2017 leaning z but slightly leaning Y
2018 leaning Z with slight Y characteristics.
Classes of 2019-203? Z

My brother John was born in August 1996, he remembered 9/11 very well as he was in Preschool and 5 years old.
My brother Jake who was born in September 1997 remembered 9/11 slightly but no very well.
John is definitely mostly Y but does have Z characteristics.
Jake is both
I am Z but with slight Y characteristics(October 1999 here)
I think that Y kid culture started transitioning in Fall of 2004 into Z and Z kid culture really started in Early-Mid 2006. I remembered High School Musical very well and that was released in 2006 and I remembered when the Wii came out and everyone of my friends got one pretty much. Hannah Montana was huge and even some of my friends watched it. I also remembered when HDTVs were starting to appear everywhere in 2007-2008. Our family got a 42 inch Plasma HDTV in 2009 and a 32 inch HDTV in 2008.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/01/16 at 8:21 am


iTunes was popular in 2004/05 because you needed iTunes to sync your music to your iPod.


You needed iTunes to sync your music to your iPod even before 2004. Anybody who owned an iPod ever since 2001 knows that you need iTunes to sync. Hell, they even shown that on their first commercial.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 8:24 am


You needed iTunes to sync your music to your iPod even before 2004. Anybody who owned an iPod ever since 2001 knows that you need iTunes to sync. Hell, they even shown that on their first commercial.


But iTunes, along with the iPod, didn't get popular until 2004/2005. That's when they released the USB edition of the iPod and made it compatible for all computers instead of just the Mac like it was from 2001-2003. I think that was 2001's point.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/01/16 at 8:55 am


But iTunes, along with the iPod, didn't get popular until 2004/2005. That's when they released the USB edition of the iPod and made it compatible for all computers instead of just the Mac like it was from 2001-2003. I think that was 2001's point.


Well yeah. But my point was that anybody who owned an iPod (along with an iMac or MacBook) back in 2001-2003, has to use iTunes in order to get music for their iPod.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 8:58 am


Well yeah. But my point was that anybody who owned an iPod (along with a iMac or MacBook) back in 2001-2003, has to use iTunes in order to get music for their iPod.


Fair enough, but even Mac owners still used the mighty Discman as their usual musical listening device (or whatever you want to call it).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/01/16 at 9:01 am


Well yeah. But my point was that anybody who owned an iPod (along with an iMac or MacBook) back in 2001-2003, has to use iTunes in order to get music for their iPod.


Yeah you're right. But iPods, and consequently iTunes weren't popular back then.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/01/16 at 9:02 am


Fair enough, but even Mac owners still used the mighty Discman as their usual musical listening device (or whatever you want to call it).


Well, some Mac owners still used Walkmans (or Discmans, if you like to call them) because they probably find them to be better than iPods.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 9:05 am


Well, some Mac owners still used Walkmans (or Discmans, if you like to call them) because they probably find them to be better than iPods.


Can't argue with that point. But from 2001-2003 the iPod wasn't popular at all so everyone just had a discman in general.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/01/16 at 9:44 am

I remember jokes about the Mac in the early 2000s about how it would take 10 minutes to boot up and how the rainbow wheel for waiting was perpetual.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/01/16 at 9:51 am


I remember jokes about the Mac in the early 2000s about how it would take 10 minutes to boot up and how the rainbow wheel for waiting was perpetual.


I think Macs still boot for a while, and the rainbow wheel is still a pain in the ass when glitching.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 9:51 am

The Mac is the worst computer. Windows 98 PC's for life.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/01/16 at 9:57 am


I think Macs still boot for a while, and the rainbow wheel is still a pain in the ass when glitching.


Doesn't it boot up in a few seconds now? Back then you could make a warm cup of tea in the time it took Mac to boot up.  ;D

Even Windows used to take a while, it was closer to 2 minutes though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/01/16 at 10:01 am


Doesn't it boot up in a few seconds now? Back then you could make a warm cup of tea in the time it took Mac to boot up.  ;D

Even Windows used to take a while, it was closer to 2 minutes though.


Sometimes, it could take up to 30 seconds, but I agree with you. It did improve during the last 10 years. Even if I'm using a PC running Windows 7, it's not that bad using it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/01/16 at 10:48 am


Haha yes, we got ours for Christmas 2007. It was beautiful.



Excellent. O0 Yeah, when we got ours (to replace a big and bulky set), we enjoyed being able to watch sharp pictures that stretched across a wider screen; this included baseball games and other programs. When watching Dodger baseball games, we kinda felt like we were right there in the action! :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/01/16 at 3:19 pm


Can't argue with that point. But from 2001-2003 the iPod wasn't popular at all so everyone just had a discman in general.


I think I still have my Discman.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 3:35 pm


I think I still have my Discman.


I still have mine. I use it all the time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/01/16 at 3:52 pm


I still have mine. I use it all the time.


I haven't used mine in almost 20 years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 3:55 pm


I haven't used mine in almost 20 years.


Discmans are the 2nd superior way to listen to music on the go. Cassette Walkman's being the first.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/01/16 at 4:07 pm


I still have mine. I use it all the time.


That is definitely hipster.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 6:55 pm


That is definitely hipster.  ;D


>:( >:(

But is listening to albums like Does This Look Infected, Losing Streak, Teenage Politics and Act Your Age hipster? I don't think so! Those albums are too much for precious hipster ears!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/02/16 at 12:50 am


Doesn't it boot up in a few seconds now? Back then you could make a warm cup of tea in the time it took Mac to boot up.  ;D

I remember that with our very first computer, a Mac that we had in the 90s. Needless to say, it became obsolete VERY quickly.



Even Windows used to take a while, it was closer to 2 minutes though.

I had similar experiences with our first Windows machine.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/02/16 at 8:05 am


Discmans are the 2nd superior way to listen to music on the go. Cassette Walkman's being the first.


I let it collect dust.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/03/16 at 1:18 am


I let it collect dust.


:o :o :o :o

Howard! How could you! This is state of the art technology you're just letting go to waste!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/03/16 at 4:06 pm


:o :o :o :o

Howard! How could you! This is state of the art technology you're just letting go to waste!


I have no reason to use it, I might want to sell it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/03/16 at 5:37 pm

Here is the most recent Wikipedia definition of Millennials if you guys are interested:

"Millennials
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Generation Y" redirects here. For other uses, see Generation Y (disambiguation) and Millennials (disambiguation).
Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends; most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s."



You could read more here:

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/03/16 at 5:39 pm


:o :o :o :o

Howard! How could you! This is state of the art technology you're just letting go to waste!


Lol Discmans were awesome, but nothing beats....

The Walkman!

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/walkman.jpg

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/03/16 at 5:52 pm


Discmans are the 2nd superior way to listen to music on the go. Cassette Walkman's being the first.


I remember my first Walkman that I got in 1993. Wait what generation am I again? Because this makes me sound old :-[

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/03/16 at 6:02 pm


I remember my first Walkman that I got in 1993. Wait what generation am I again? Because this makes me sound old :-[


That must've been awesome! The Discman was WAY before my time, heck I barely caught the tail end of Discmans. Anyways, I would say its tricky with early 80's babies as they are either end of X or start of Y. But personally I would say Late X for those born in 1980-Mid 1981, and Early Y for Late 1981-1983. Basically if you came of age if you came of age and or spent most of your 20's in the 90's, you'd be Gen X. Your on the tail end since you came of age in 98', but overall since you spent most of your H.S years in the Mid 90's which was pretty Gen X, then thats the Gen i'd put you in.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/03/16 at 6:22 pm


That must've been awesome! The Discman was WAY before my time, heck I barely caught the tail end of Discmans. Anyways, I would say its tricky with early 80's babies as they are either end of X or start of Y. But personally I would say Late X for those born in 1980-Mid 1981, and Early Y for Late 1981-1983. Basically if you came of age if you came of age and or spent most of your 20's in the 90's, you'd be Gen X. Your on the tail end since you came of age in 98', but overall since you spent most of your H.S years in the Mid 90's which was pretty Gen X, then thats the Gen i'd put you in.


Yes...it was awesome. But Walkmans were ridiculously bulky! It was hard to hide them in school. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/03/16 at 6:36 pm


Yes...it was awesome. But Walkmans were ridiculously bulky! It was hard to hide them in school. ;D


Lol I could somewhat imagine ;D I remember a similar situation with kids bringing Gameboys and Tamogotchis to school in the early 2000's. The teachers would usually confiscate them if kids were using them in class. Fortunately I never had mine taken away ::)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/03/16 at 7:09 pm

I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, and I actually like these topics, so I'm not complaining, but do you guys have some form of mild autism?

Like, you go into incredible detail about how such and such year was different from the other, how such and such show is a Gen Y show with a sprinkling of Z, or how this PC commercial released on December 31, 2003 at 11:49:30 PM starring Jesse McCartney exemplified the difference between the early 2000s and late 2000s as it was quite different from an updated version of that commercial starring Justin Bieber that was released on August 20, 2009 at 2:04:32 AM. ;D

I'm not complaining or being condescending or anything, it's just that I've never seen other sites go into this much detail about pop culture before.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/03/16 at 7:31 pm

I found this article the other day and I think its a very interesting read. I also agree with many of the author's points! Also if you have the chance read the comments as I found the opinions of some of the commentors pretty intriguing:

https://socalledmillennial.com/2013/11/05/why-are-the-generation-x-and-millennial-birth-years-so-muddled/



Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: TheKid99 on 02/03/16 at 9:13 pm



I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, and I actually like these topics, so I'm not complaining, but do you guys have some form of mild autism?

Like, you go into incredible detail about how such and such year was different from the other, how such and such show is a Gen Y show with a sprinkling of Z, or how this PC commercial released on December 31, 2003 at 11:49:30 PM starring Jesse McCartney exemplified the difference between the early 2000s and late 2000s as it was quite different from an updated version of that commercial starring Justin Bieber that was released on August 20, 2009 at 2:04:32 AM. ;D

I'm not complaining or being condescending or anything, it's just that I've never seen other sites go into this much detail about pop culture before.
Well actually interestingly enough I do have autism, but it is a pretty mild version of it. So your assumption about me is correct.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/03/16 at 9:37 pm


I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, and I actually like these topics, so I'm not complaining, but do you guys have some form of mild autism?

Like, you go into incredible detail about how such and such year was different from the other, how such and such show is a Gen Y show with a sprinkling of Z, or how this PC commercial released on December 31, 2003 at 11:49:30 PM starring Jesse McCartney exemplified the difference between the early 2000s and late 2000s as it was quite different from an updated version of that commercial starring Justin Bieber that was released on August 20, 2009 at 2:04:32 AM. ;D

I'm not complaining or being condescending or anything, it's just that I've never seen other sites go into this much detail about pop culture before.


I just respond to whatever is put on here. I hardly start topics on this website. Whenever people start bringing up opinions or debates I always join no matter what. I did have some listening and focus problems throughout elementary & middle school. I've settled down since 8th grade but even to this day I still have to really pay attention. I have an INTP personality. I think about things A LOT. I've always been that way. I'm really strong in mathematics. I've come a long way though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/03/16 at 9:50 pm


I just respond to whatever is put on here. I hardly start topics on this website. Whenever people start bringing up opinions or debates I always join no matter what. I did have some listening and focus problems throughout elementary & middle school. I've settled down since 8th grade but even to this day I still have to really pay attention. I have an INTP personality. I think about things A LOT. I've always been that way. I'm really strong in mathematics. I've come a long way though.


This. Don't ever let labels define you, work hard enough to achieve whatever you want in life! For instance I'm technically an INFP (meaning I'm an introverted idealist) but that doesn't mean I have to be extremely upidy and optimistic all the time. I do have a practical side to me, so I take those personality types, learning defiecencies, and other medical & social issues/constructs with a grain of salt.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/03/16 at 10:31 pm


I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, and I actually like these topics, so I'm not complaining, but do you guys have some form of mild autism?

Like, you go into incredible detail about how such and such year was different from the other, how such and such show is a Gen Y show with a sprinkling of Z, or how this PC commercial released on December 31, 2003 at 11:49:30 PM starring Jesse McCartney exemplified the difference between the early 2000s and late 2000s as it was quite different from an updated version of that commercial starring Justin Bieber that was released on August 20, 2009 at 2:04:32 AM. ;D

I'm not complaining or being condescending or anything, it's just that I've never seen other sites go into this much detail about pop culture before.


I doubt a commercial that aired at 2AM could cause a cultural shift.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/03/16 at 10:52 pm

I was exaggerating. ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/03/16 at 11:11 pm


I was exaggerating. ;)
I was joking  :P

My dry humour doesn't seem to play on the Internet  :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/03/16 at 11:16 pm

What I meant with that joke, though, is that if a commercial made in 2003 had an "updated" version in 2009, the differences between the early 2000s and late 2000s could easily be seen.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/03/16 at 11:20 pm


What I meant with that joke, though, is that if a commercial made in 2003 had an "updated" version in 2009, the differences between the early 2000s and late 2000s could easily be seen.


How can you not see the difference between Jesse McCartney and Justin Bieber  >:( Justin Bieber makes amazing music unlike you-don't-know-who.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/03/16 at 11:29 pm

Also I personally consider August 20, 2009 at 2:04:32 AM to be closer to early 2010s culture than late 2000s culture. Though I can't deny 2:04:32 AM had a a bit of a DREAMY vibe that 10:07:31 AM didn't,  but some were in REM while others are in deep sleep, it all depends on your individual experience idk.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/03/16 at 11:31 pm


How can you not see the difference between Jesse McCartney and Justin Bieber  >:( Justin Bieber makes amazing music unlike you-don't-know-who.

I see where you're going with this. ;D

To be honest, I've never actually heard any of Bieber's music, all I know is that the Internet has a raging hateon for him. I've heard people claim it's because of the drunk driving scandal, but to be honest, it seems like everyone hated him even before that. These seem to be the same people who, in the late 90s/early 00s, referred to *Nsync as "*Nsuck", or the Backstreet Boys as "F*gstreet Boys". Just insecure, "kewl", "classic rawk" older men who hate anything feminine or "gay".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/04/16 at 12:03 am


I have no reason to use it, I might want to sell it.


Howard! I don't know what to say about this! >:(


Lol Discmans were awesome, but nothing beats....

The Walkman!

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/walkman.jpg


The truth. My first portable music player was a tape Walkman.


I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, and I actually like these topics, so I'm not complaining, but do you guys have some form of mild autism?

Like, you go into incredible detail about how such and such year was different from the other, how such and such show is a Gen Y show with a sprinkling of Z, or how this PC commercial released on December 31, 2003 at 11:49:30 PM starring Jesse McCartney exemplified the difference between the early 2000s and late 2000s as it was quite different from an updated version of that commercial starring Justin Bieber that was released on August 20, 2009 at 2:04:32 AM. ;D

I'm not complaining or being condescending or anything, it's just that I've never seen other sites go into this much detail about pop culture before.


No way! I just have adult ADHD.

But if you must know, it was at December 21st, 2009 exactly at 10:15 PM that the real 2010's began. Anything before that is pure 2000's!


I see where you're going with this. ;D

To be honest, I've never actually heard any of Bieber's music, all I know is that the Internet has a raging hateon for him. I've heard people claim it's because of the drunk driving scandal, but to be honest, it seems like everyone hated him even before that. These seem to be the same people who, in the late 90s/early 00s, referred to *Nsync as "*Nsuck", or the Backstreet Boys as "F*gstreet Boys". Just insecure, "kewl", "classic rawk" older men who hate anything feminine or "gay".


I remember when everyone hated boybands from 1997-2003.

Late 90's/early 00's internet fun:

- limp bizkit r 4 ppl who r 2 cool for nsynch but still need sh!tty musik 2 listen 2

- da real song goez harder den dis. dis is deh gay version. what? r dey gay??

- sum 41 oil each uddr up n play hide da flashlite.

This is high class high brow humor right here.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/04/16 at 1:40 pm


I was exaggerating. ;)


Teehee ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/04/16 at 3:13 pm


Lol Discmans were awesome, but nothing beats....

The Walkman!

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/walkman.jpg


I loved The Walkman, back in the days when you could slide in a cassette tape and go on about your business.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/04/16 at 3:14 pm


Yes...it was awesome. But Walkmans were ridiculously bulky! It was hard to hide them in school. ;D


I put my Walkman on my belt buckle.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/04/16 at 3:16 pm


Howard! I don't know what to say about this!

Hey I need the money.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/04/16 at 3:40 pm


I put my Walkman on my belt buckle.


That was pretty much all we could do with it, and what made it portable. The same thing with portable CD players.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/04/16 at 7:19 pm


That was pretty much all we could do with it, and what made it portable. The same thing with portable CD players.

That way you could have both hands free. I did that too with my portable electronics.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/04/16 at 7:29 pm


That way you could have both hands free. I did that too with my portable electronics.


Most them had these fastening sections in the back where one could adjust them to anything....and that was it!



Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/05/16 at 12:40 am


Hey I need the money.


But Discmans are special... :\'(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/05/16 at 6:14 am


Most them had these fastening sections in the back where one could adjust them to anything....and that was it!


and you would have your hands free.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/05/16 at 6:15 am


But Discmans are special... :\'(


To me, they're "old hat".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/05/16 at 4:03 pm


To me, they're "old hat".


This makes me sad, Howard. Very sad. :(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/05/16 at 5:17 pm


But Discmans are special... :\'(

I never had one of those... but I think my parents had a similar device. I know because I used it once.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/05/16 at 7:24 pm


I never had one of those... but I think my parents had a similar device. I know because I used it once.


Do you remember the brand? I had a Panasonic Disc player as a spare.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/05/16 at 7:34 pm


This makes me sad, Howard. Very sad. :(


I may change my mind and save them, you never know when they could be a collector's item.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/05/16 at 7:59 pm


I may change my mind and save them, you never know when they could be a collector's item.


That is true! I still use my Disc or cassette walkman all the time. It's the most reliable if you ask me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/05/16 at 9:48 pm

Here's a post from Popsugar about the confusion between Gen Y & Gen Z. The author was actually born in 1994, and she identifies herself as an Y/Z Cusp, like I do:

http://www.popsugar.com/smart-living/What-Generation-Z-40064775

For people born in the mid 90's what's your opinion on this?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/05/16 at 9:58 pm


Here's a post from Popsugar about the confusion between Gen Y & Gen Z. The author was actually born in 1994, and she identifies herself as an Y/Z Cusp, like I do:

http://www.popsugar.com/smart-living/What-Generation-Z-40064775

For people born in the mid 90's what's your opinion on this?


Even though I'm not a Y/Z cusp since I was born in 1999, I do share a few similarities with this '94 baby.

1. We're internet experts.
9. We're stressed out, and often.
11. We're more accepting.

2 to 10 seems a bit off for me. I could relate to number 3, but since everybody on this site knows that I don't like today's YouTube, I digress.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/05/16 at 11:27 pm


Here's a post from Popsugar about the confusion between Gen Y & Gen Z. The author was actually born in 1994, and she identifies herself as an Y/Z Cusp, like I do:

http://www.popsugar.com/smart-living/What-Generation-Z-40064775

For people born in the mid 90's what's your opinion on this?

Well, I don't view myself as a Y/Z cusp, JUST LATE Y!!!!
I honestly think this girl is confusing Gen Z with Gen Y!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/05/16 at 11:28 pm


Even though I'm not a Y/Z cusp since I was born in 1999, I do share a few similarities with this '94 baby.

1. We're internet experts.
9. We're stressed out, and often.
11. We're more accepting.

2 to 10 seems a bit off for me. I could relate to number 3, but since everybody on this site that I don't like today's YouTube, I digress.


I see you as Y/Z cusp, and not early Z!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/05/16 at 11:55 pm

It's funny how I was watching ESPN First Take today, and Deion Sanders was there giving his opinion on Cam Newton's criticism and success, and he was talking about the difference between the 90's/early 00's players of the NFL like himself compared to the new generation of players who've been drafted pretty much throughout this decade, like Cam Newton, and he was calling us the Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. social media generation, and it goes to show you how Generation Y is really the first true generation who grew up into the internet, NOT Z. It's about how you grow up FULLY. Not a release date. I hate it when people say Generation Y was the last generation to have everything completely old school and Generation Z is the first to have everything completely tech savvy. That's not true. I know TONS of folks part of the Y generation who post tons of instagram pics too especially them girls lol. As well as early Z'ers as well. In reality, the second half of Gen Y and early Gen Z is hardly any different. It's a gradual transition. Also, as I've stated many times before, I disagree with Gen Z starting in 2000, 2001, or even 2002. That's way too late when almost everybody agrees that Gen Y was in full effect by 1981/82 born's. Generations can only last around 15-17 years at the max.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/05/16 at 11:57 pm


I see you as Y/Z cusp, and not early Z!


How come?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/06/16 at 12:42 am


It's funny how I was watching ESPN First Take today, and Deion Sanders was there giving his opinion on Cam Newton's criticism and success, and he was talking about the difference between the 90's/early 00's players of the NFL like himself compared to the new generation of players who've been drafted pretty much throughout this decade, like Cam Newton, and he was calling us the Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. social media generation, and it goes to show you how Generation Y is really the first true generation who grew up into the internet, NOT Z. It's about how you grow up FULLY. Not a release date. I hate it when people say Generation Y was the last generation to have everything completely old school and Generation Z is the first to have everything completely tech savvy. That's not true. I know TONS of folks part of the Y generation who post tons of instagram pics too especially them girls lol. As well as early Z'ers as well. In reality, the second half of Gen Y and early Gen Z is hardly any different. It's a gradual transition. Also, as I've stated many times before, I disagree with Gen Z starting in 2000, 2001, or even 2002. That's way too late when almost everybody agrees that Gen Y was in full effect by 1981/82 born's. Generations can only last around 15-17 years at the max.

I would say that when it comes to childhoods, Gen Y and possibly early Gen Z were "old school" (i.e., not really immersed in social media, no iPhones in elementary school).

However, teen and adult years are much different. Gen Y and Gen Z both seem to be immersed in social media, selfies, Instagram, bearded hipster culture, "Netflix and Chill", etc. as adults. The Simpsons even did an episode where Apu's 25-year-old son comes to visit, and he's always taking selfies and dressing like a hipster.

When it comes to adult use of social media, people born in 1989 (Y) and 1995 (Z) are not really different at all. However, early Y-ers (1980-1984) might feel more distant from this culture.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 12:47 am


It's funny how I was watching ESPN First Take today, and Deion Sanders was there giving his opinion on Cam Newton's criticism and success, and he was talking about the difference between the 90's/early 00's players of the NFL like himself compared to the new generation of players who've been drafted pretty much throughout this decade, like Cam Newton, and he was calling us the Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. social media generation, and it goes to show you how Generation Y is really the first true generation who grew up into the internet, NOT Z. It's about how you grow up FULLY. Not a release date. I hate it when people say Generation Y was the last generation to have everything completely old school and Generation Z is the first to have everything completely tech savvy. That's not true. I know TONS of folks part of the Y generation who post tons of instagram pics too especially them girls lol. As well as early Z'ers as well. In reality, the second half of Gen Y and early Gen Z is hardly any different. It's a gradual transition. Also, as I've stated many times before, I disagree with Gen Z starting in 2000, 2001, or even 2002. That's way too late when almost everybody agrees that Gen Y was in full effect by 1981/82 born's. Generations can only last around 15-17 years at the max.

Yep Generation X was pretty much the last to have things old schoolish!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 12:48 am


I would say that when it comes to childhoods, Gen Y and possibly early Gen Z were "old school" (i.e., not really immersed in social media, no iPhones in elementary school).

However, teen and adult years are much different. Gen Y and Gen Z both seem to be immersed in social media, selfies, Instagram, bearded hipster culture, "Netflix and Chill", etc. as adults. The Simpsons even did an episode where Apu's 25-year-old son comes to visit, and he's always taking selfies and dressing like a hipster.

When it comes to adult use of social media, people born in 1989 (Y) and 1995 (Z) are not really different at all. However, early Y-ers (1980-1984) might feel more distant from this culture.

You think 1995 is Z?! ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/06/16 at 12:51 am

I think it's more late Y, but 99.9% of businesses and marketers think it's the beginning of Z, despite what some may claim.

Just like many older people would prefer 1980-1982 to be Gen X and not Gen Y, despite what the majority of marketers say.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 12:51 am


I think it's more late Y, but 99.9% of businesses and marketers think it's the beginning of Z, despite what some may claim.

Just like many older people would prefer 1980-1982 to be Gen X and not Gen Y, despite what the majority of marketers say.

1980 and most of 1981 are at the tail end of X. late 1981 and 1982 are the first Yers. Also 1985ers and 1986ers are early Yers too their just on the cusp of core.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/06/16 at 12:58 am


1980 and most of 1981 are at the tail end of X. late 1981 and 1982 are the first Yers. Also 1985ers and 1986ers are early Yers too their just on the cusp of core.

I agree with your opinion, but that's not how the people who invented these terms think. They don't have things like "generational cusps" or "transitions". They just clump everyone born in a set of years together, no matter how different they may be.

You never hear marketers say something like "1995-97 births are Gen Z with a Y childhood and slight influence, obviously different from Zers currently in elementary school". Instead, you always hear them say "Gen Z, the generation born from 1995 to 2010, never knew a world without Internet, had iPhones in kindergarten, took selfies of themselves as babies, etc. etc. etc."

Broad strokes get fences painted faster, and products sold faster. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/06/16 at 6:11 am


Well, I don't view myself as a Y/Z cusp, JUST LATE Y!!!!
I honestly think this girl is confusing Gen Z with Gen Y!


TBH, that's probably the reason why I relate with it much more than other 'Gen Z' articles I've seen recently. It seems like the traits that she suggest are in reality for the most part Late Y Traits. For instance in the late 00's/early 10's most Gen Zer's were merely only kids and or tweens. But someone born in 1995/6 was in their teens for the most part. I think that is a Generation gap IMO, because Yers (including late Yer's like myself and others) grew up during a time of excess and Came of age during despair. For older Yer's born from 1981/2-1986 it was post 9/11 and the despair and fear the country felt at the time even though economically things were still pretty good for the most part, for core Yer's born from 1987-1991 it was the Great Recession mixed in with the War on Terror at its peak, and for Late Yer's born from 1992-1997 it is the stagnate recovery in the 2010's as we speak and renewed tensions in the Middle East & Russia. Gen Zer's seemed to have had grew up during the recession as kids, thus their outlook on life is much different than Millennials who grew up during the booming economy of the 1990's & 2000's.


It's funny how I was watching ESPN First Take today, and Deion Sanders was there giving his opinion on Cam Newton's criticism and success, and he was talking about the difference between the 90's/early 00's players of the NFL like himself compared to the new generation of players who've been drafted pretty much throughout this decade, like Cam Newton, and he was calling us the Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. social media generation, and it goes to show you how Generation Y is really the first true generation who grew up into the internet, NOT Z. It's about how you grow up FULLY. Not a release date. I hate it when people say Generation Y was the last generation to have everything completely old school and Generation Z is the first to have everything completely tech savvy. That's not true. I know TONS of folks part of the Y generation who post tons of instagram pics too especially them girls lol. As well as early Z'ers as well. In reality, the second half of Gen Y and early Gen Z is hardly any different. It's a gradual transition. Also, as I've stated many times before, I disagree with Gen Z starting in 2000, 2001, or even 2002. That's way too late when almost everybody agrees that Gen Y was in full effect by 1981/82 born's. Generations can only last around 15-17 years at the max.


We seemed to have had grew up during the transitional phase in technology, thus we could relate with the old school and the new school equally. For instance, we all have memories of game cartdriges, VHS Tapes, CDs (or for older Y's cassetes), CRT TVs, dial up internet, etc. That is most definitely old school by today's standards! But at the same time we were young enough that we adapted to the new technology much quicker than our older peers.

So I do agree somewhat that Millennials (which included us as well) were the last to grow up old school, while we came of age and or spent our youth (age 11-22) period when technology was much more digital thus we adapted to new technology easier than previous generations. Hence why you see 20 somethings taking a million selfies and posting them on instagram, or why most popular YouTubers these days are in the 20's age range as well. We're Analog/Digital Hybrids, and I'm perfectly fine with that


I agree with your opinion, but that's not how the people who invented these terms think. They don't have things like "generational cusps" or "transitions". They just clump everyone born in a set of years together, no matter how different they may be.

You never hear marketers say something like "1995-97 births are Gen Z with a Y childhood and slight influence, obviously different from Zers currently in elementary school". Instead, you always hear them say "Gen Z, the generation born from 1995 to 2010, never knew a world without Internet, had iPhones in kindergarten, took selfies of themselves as babies, etc. etc. etc."

Broad strokes get fences painted faster, and products sold faster. ;D


Hence why I take these articles with a grain of salt. A lot people tend to forget that just 15-20 years ago, people born as early as 1975 were being considered Millennials, now in 2016 we now know thats completely BS ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/06/16 at 6:25 am


Hence why I take these articles with a grain of salt. A lot people tend to forget that just 15-20 years ago, people born as early as 1975 were being considered Millennials, now in 2016 we now know thats completely BS ;D

I'm not saying those articles who say 1995 is Z are necessarily right, but it seems like the reason they moved it down to there (as opposed to 2000-2001, which I remember it used to be and is still used by a few articles) is because the Internet became popular in that year.

It's arbitrary, but again, all generations are arbitrary. "Millennials", for example, were named after the graduating Class of 2000, even though the members of that class were probably not very different from the Class of 1999 at all.

It's not like some born on January 1st 1982 was suddenly a bearded glasses-wearing SJW iPhone preening hipster and everyone before that was a grunge-addicted flannel-wearing slacker. It's just generalizations to sell products to people and keep track of demographics easily.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 02/06/16 at 8:21 am

I have seen some articles saying that Millennials ended in 2000, which it makes more sense, placing all the people born in the 90s in one generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/06/16 at 10:22 am


I have seen some articles saying that Millennials ended in 2000, which it makes more sense, placing all the people born in the 90s in one generation.


I agree with this for the most part, but most sources these days seem to end it somewhere between 1995-1997...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/06/16 at 10:34 am


I would say that when it comes to childhoods, Gen Y and possibly early Gen Z were "old school" (i.e., not really immersed in social media, no iPhones in elementary school).

However, teen and adult years are much different. Gen Y and Gen Z both seem to be immersed in social media, selfies, Instagram, bearded hipster culture, "Netflix and Chill", etc. as adults. The Simpsons even did an episode where Apu's 25-year-old son comes to visit, and he's always taking selfies and dressing like a hipster.

When it comes to adult use of social media, people born in 1989 (Y) and 1995 (Z) are not really different at all. However, early Y-ers (1980-1984) might feel more distant from this culture.


This is why I hate being a young adult in this era.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/06/16 at 10:42 am


I see you as Y/Z cusp, and not early Z!


Seriously, how are 1999 babies Y/Z cusps?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/06/16 at 11:00 am


Here's a post from Popsugar about the confusion between Gen Y & Gen Z. The author was actually born in 1994, and she identifies herself as an Y/Z Cusp, like I do:

http://www.popsugar.com/smart-living/What-Generation-Z-40064775

For people born in the mid 90's what's your opinion on this?


She seems a bit dense to me. Her writing is very one dimensional, only covering the (very exaggerated) positive traits of her generation. And even with things that should be negative traits,she tries to pass off as "positive". Being addicted to social media and internet use, as stated in the first paragraph, is one of the problems I have with society today. Yet she somehow take's this with pride. Not to mention she acts as if making Vines is something to be proud of. At this point, it was really hard for me to have any respect for her.

She also tries to claim that text messaging is better than communicating in person, which another issue I have with today's society. There are also things like "looking up to Youtubers". That's when I realized there must be something wrong with this girl's brain. She either seems unrealistically positive, or claims negative traits as positive ones. Oh, and she's a possible SJW. The link she sent in regards to activist movements made me raise an eyebrow.

Not to mention at times, she seems to confuse Y with Z. It's possible that she views those born in the mid 90s as "Z", which pretty stupid. She seems like a robotic tool, whom is immersed in the popular way of thinking. Just a caricature of the 2010s. Sorry if I seem harsh on her, but I just had to let this out there.

Oh yeah, and this same girl posted this godawful article:
http://www.popsugar.com/love/How-Turn-Men-Feminists-37950012

This pretty much confirms she's a robotic tool.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/06/16 at 11:07 am


This is why I hate being a young adult in this era.


There's so much other variety out there I could care about though. Hipster fashion or instagram selfies shouldn't be the final be all of how our culture is. You gotta focus on the positive that's out there. You have great shows for the youth and adults on TV like The Flash, The Walking Dead, Agents of Shield, Brooklyn Nine Nine, Empire, etc. Look at all the variety of shows you can find on Netflix or Hulu. The mainstream music since the second half of 2015 was surprising good for me, although, still not my favorite of the decade. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has been going on well, and I'm looking forward to the new Deadpool movie coming out although I don't know if it's technically part of the universe since Disney doesn't do R movies. If anyone's a huge fan of sports teams like me, especially college football and the NFL, that's something you'll always be excited for year in and year out. Seeing how well your team does and focusing on the drafts and free agencies each year. Just go outside each morning, run several miles, set up a routine or go to the gym and start a workout plan. It really helped me out before although I'll admit I gotta get back in shape pronto.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/06/16 at 11:17 am


There's so much other variety out there I could care about though. Hipster fashion or instagram selfies shouldn't be the final be all of how our culture is. You gotta focus on the positive that's out there. You have great shows for the youth and adults on TV like The Flash, The Walking Dead, Agents of Shield, Brooklyn Nine Nine, Empire, etc. Look at all the variety of shows you can find on Netflix or Hulu. The mainstream music since the second half of 2015 was surprising good for me, although, still not my favorite of the decade. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has been going on well, and I'm looking forward to the new Deadpool movie coming out although I don't know if it's technically part of the universe since Disney doesn't do R movies. If anyone's a huge fan of sports teams like me, especially college football and the NFL, that's something you'll always be excited for year in and year out. Seeing how well your team does and focusing on the drafts and free agencies each year. Just go outside each morning, run several miles, set up a routine or go to the gym and start a workout plan. It really helped me out before although I'll admit I gotta get back in shape pronto.


I'm burnt out when it comes to comic book movies, for the most part. I feel like T.V. is overhyped, and there's too much focus on making everything "serialized". Sure there are shows I like, but most of them just feel the same to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/06/16 at 11:32 am


I'm burnt out when it comes tocomic book movies, for the most part. I feel like T.V. is overhyped, and there's too much focus on making everything "serialized". Sure there are shows I like, but most of them just feel the same to me.


I understand where you're coming from. I've enjoyed a lot of the mainstream culture so far from 2007 and onwards, but not all of course. If I had a choice to choose when I was born I'd choose 1976 to experience the kid culture of the 80's and the mainstream culture throughout the 90's. Or 1981 to experience the kid culture of the late 80's/early 90's and the mainstream culture throughout the 90's to early 00's. Just think about it back in our parents' childhood when mostly everything on TV were mostly family sitcoms and news, cartoons could only be shown on Saturday mornings, and I'm not so sure on how accessible the early generation of video games were back then. I think our generation takes a lot for granted which I'm guilty of myself. We will always have the choice to go outside, interact with one another, or get a workout in the gym, whenever we want to no matter how more advanced technology becomes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/06/16 at 11:33 am

I want to discuss this with my boyfriend! He's 6 years younger than me, born in 86. That makes him Y doesn't it? I know his kid and teen cultures were different than mine...but we kinda don't care, lol!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 02/06/16 at 12:14 pm


I want to discuss this with my boyfriend! He's 6 years younger than me, born in 86. That makes him Y doesn't it? I know his kid and teen cultures were different than mine...but we kinda don't care, lol!


You are Generation X, he is Millennial. His kid and teen cultures were very different from yours. The change in birth patterns, attitudes towards babies and young children, and the way in which popular culture played out and evolved and changed made two people born only four years apart have very different experiences in life. Someone born in 1981 has practically nothing in common with someone born in 1985. As a matter of fact, 1985 babies culturally have more in common with someone born in 1989 than 1981. 1981 is a '90s teen, whereas 1985 and 1989 are '00s teens. An early '00s high school experience was much more like a mid '00s one than a late '90s one. It's like the Silent Generation/Baby Boomer gap. Such a short period of space yet such an enormous difference in attitude and mindset and tastes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 12:47 pm


You are Generation X, he is Millennial. His kid and teen cultures were very different from yours. The change in birth patterns, attitudes towards babies and young children, and the way in which popular culture played out and evolved and changed made two people born only four years apart have very different experiences in life. Someone born in 1981 has practically nothing in common with someone born in 1985. As a matter of fact, 1985 babies culturally have more in common with someone born in 1989 than 1981. 1981 is a '90s teen, whereas 1985 and 1989 are '00s teens. An early '00s high school experience was much more like a mid '00s one than a late '90s one. It's like the Silent Generation/Baby Boomer gap. Such a short period of space yet such an enormous difference in attitude and mindset and tastes.

So do you think a 1991 born has nothing in common with me, and a 1999er more in common with me?! ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/06/16 at 1:20 pm


So do you think a 1991 born has nothing in common with me, and a 1999er more in common with me?! ???


I don't really think I have a lot in common with you. Aside from the mid 2000s kid stuff, that's just about it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 02/06/16 at 1:20 pm


So do you think a 1991 born has nothing in common with me, and a 1999er more in common with me?! ???


I'm only a month younger than you, and I don't really relate to either on a large scale. People born in 1991 will be turning 25 this year, and 1999 babies will turn 17. I'm 20, and I will be so until the end of November. For me personally, I do relate more to 16-17 year olds than 23-24 year olds. It depends on one's upbringing really.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 02/06/16 at 2:02 pm


Well, I don't view myself as a Y/Z cusp, JUST LATE Y!!!!
I honestly think this girl is confusing Gen Z with Gen Y!


I do. I don't relate to stereotypical millennial traits at all, and the homeland generation is too young to develop any stereotypes. I am very different from someone born in 1992. I have much more in common with someone born in 1998.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/06/16 at 2:25 pm


I do. I don't relate to stereotypical millennial traits at all, and the homeland generation is too young to develop any stereotypes. I am very different from someone born in 1992. I have much more in common with someone born in 1998.


I agree, I'll be 20 in three days, and I relate to 1998 born's as evenly as 1994 born's from a childhood perspective. I relate to 1993 born's as evenly as 1999. There are some childhood stuff that I have in common with 1992 but not all, and it's a no brainer that I relate more to 1997 & 1998 born's because they're only a year or two part while 1992 born's are four years apart.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/06/16 at 2:53 pm


That is true! I still use my Disc or cassette walkman all the time. It's the most reliable if you ask me.


and it's portable too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 2:55 pm

We'll, I view late 1997ers, 1998ers and even 1999ers as younger siblings I NEVER saw them as part of my chorot like 1993ers, 1994ers and 1996ers/early 97ers

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 3:03 pm


I do. I don't relate to stereotypical millennial traits at all, and the homeland generation is too young to develop any stereotypes. I am very different from someone born in 1992. I have much more in common with someone born in 1998.

A 1992er feels kinda like my older sibling and a 1998er feels like my younger sibling so it's a no win scenario for me lol.

And BTW what's strictly late gen y to you?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 3:04 pm


I agree, I'll be 20 in three days, and I relate to 1998 born's as evenly as 1994 born's from a childhood perspective. I relate to 1993 born's as evenly as 1999. There are some childhood stuff that I have in common with 1992 but not all, and it's a no brainer that I relate more to 1997 & 1998 born's because they're only a year or two part while 1992 born's are four years apart.

As a 1995er and NOT a 96er, I relate to 93ers much more than 1999ers, WITHOUT question! I really don't have that much in common with a 1999er.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/06/16 at 3:07 pm


Do you remember the brand? I had a Panasonic Disc player as a spare.

No, I don't think that was it. If we can find it somewhere (assuming we still have it), then I can check.

We've bought new portable electronic things in recent years, and I can't always keep track of 'em.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/06/16 at 3:07 pm


A 1992er feels kinda like my older sibling and a 1998er feels like my younger sibling so it's a no win scenario for me lol.

And BTW what's strictly late gen y to you?


Good question, I'd like to know his opinion on that too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 3:12 pm


Good question, I'd like to know his opinion on that too.

Yeah I can see where he is kinda coming from. 92ers were exiting their prime teen years right when I was entering mine, but the same could be said about 98ers too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/06/16 at 3:13 pm


As a 1995er and NOT a 96er, I relate to 93ers much more than 1999ers, WITHOUT question! I really don't have that much in common with a 1999er.


Well, if you look at the whole cohort of 1993 born's, most of them were in the Class of 2011, while the late part of them were in the Class of 2012, so that was two years in high school we had with them. As for 1999 born's, most of them are juniors in high school right now who were only in high school for one year with our group while the late part of 1999 are currently sophomores and we were graduated by the time they came. So I guess you can say that the late 1995/early 1996 born's relate more to 1993 than 1999, however, late 1996/early 1997 would relate more to 1999 than 1993.

Just to let you know, it's common sense that me as an early 96 born is going to relate more to late 95'ers than late 96'ers. Not saying that I don't relate to any of them, but I grew up in the Class of 2014 with September 1995-August 1996 born's. Everybody born in late 95 and early 96 are 20 for most of this year. Everybody born in early 95 are 21 for most of this year, and those born in late 96 are 19 for most of this year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 3:17 pm


Well, if you look at the whole cohort of 1993 born's, most of them were in the Class of 2011, while the late part of them were in the Class of 2012, so that was two years in high school we had with them. As for 1999 born's, most of them are juniors in high school right now who were only in high school for one year with our group while the late part of 1999 are currently sophomores and we were graduated by the time they came. So I guess you can say that the late 1995/early 1996 born's relate more to 1993 than 1999, however, late 1996/early 1997 would relate more to 1999 than 1993.

Just to let you know, it's common sense that me as an early 96 born is going to relate more to late 95'ers than late 96'ers. Not saying that I don't relate to any of them, but I grew up in the Class of 2014 with September 1995-August 1996 born's. Everybody born in late 95 and early 96 are 20 for most of this year. Everybody born in early 95 are 21 for most of this year, and those born in late 96 are 19 for most of this year.

Yes! I'm glad we're finally discussing adolescent years and not childhood! Lol
If we're talking childhood then it's not even up for a debate I relate to 1991ers more than 1999ers and 1993ers more than 1999ers obviously. But the adolescent years is a WHOLE different story.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 3:21 pm


Well, if you look at the whole cohort of 1993 born's, most of them were in the Class of 2011, while the late part of them were in the Class of 2012, so that was two years in high school we had with them. As for 1999 born's, most of them are juniors in high school right now who were only in high school for one year with our group while the late part of 1999 are currently sophomores and we were graduated by the time they came. So I guess you can say that the late 1995/early 1996 born's relate more to 1993 than 1999, however, late 1996/early 1997 would relate more to 1999 than 1993.

Just to let you know, it's common sense that me as an early 96 born is going to relate more to late 95'ers than late 96'ers. Not saying that I don't relate to any of them, but I grew up in the Class of 2014 with September 1995-August 1996 born's. Everybody born in late 95 and early 96 are 20 for most of this year. Everybody born in early 95 are 21 for most of this year, and those born in late 96 are 19 for most of this year.

My class was ODD it was half 95ers and half 96ers. As a matter of fact if you take away the people that transferred there were more 95ers than 96ers at one point I think! It was CRAZY! :D :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/06/16 at 8:34 pm


Yes! I'm glad we're finally discussing adolescent years and not childhood! Lol
If we're talking childhood then it's not even up for a debate I relate to 1991ers more than 1999ers and 1993ers more than 1999ers obviously. But the adolescent years is a WHOLE different story.


I was a teenager from 2006 - 2012, which is why I feel Y/Z cusp. I'm both a 2000s teen and a 2010s teen!

My favourite school year was 2009-10 school year, the one where we thought the world was going to end because the Hadron Collider was going to make a black hole LOL.

Being a 2000s teen was really miserable, people were homophobic and if you were good at math you would get bullied. I loved the "kumbaya" moment we all had in 2009-10 school year when the nerds took over school and bullying became super uncool. It was the only high school year I didn't feel sub-human. I "experienced" both but I liked being a 2010s teen more, by far. Of course I graduated in 2010 and got a full-time job, so I'm not sure if I'm young enough to be a full blown 2010s teen.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 9:05 pm


I was a teenager from 2006 - 2012, which is why I feel Y/Z cusp. I'm both a 2000s teen and a 2010s teen!

My favourite school year was 2009-10 school year, the one where we thought the world was going to end because the Hadron Collider was going to make a black hole LOL.

Being a 2000s teen was really miserable, people were homophobic and if you were good at math you would get bullied. I loved the "kumbaya" moment we all had in 2009-10 school year when the nerds took over school and bullying became super uncool. It was the only high school year I didn't feel sub-human. I "experienced" both but I liked being a 2010s teen more, by far. Of course I graduated in 2010 and got a full-time job, so I'm not sure if I'm young enough to be a full blown 2010s teen.

Yeah, I was mainly a teen in the early 2010s, with a few during the first half of the mid 2010s(2014/15ish). So I actually don't consider myself a true 10s teen. I will have half teens and half 20s years in the 2010s, so it's a no win scenario.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 9:13 pm


I was a teenager from 2006 - 2012, which is why I feel Y/Z cusp. I'm both a 2000s teen and a 2010s teen!


You're SOLID late Y to me, and not Y/Z cusp. Interesting that a 1993 born is saying this. :o ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/06/16 at 10:02 pm


You're SOLID late Y to me, and not Y/Z cusp. Interesting that a 1993 born is saying this. :o ???


Maybe "Y/Z cusp" is the wrong word. But I relate to both Gen Y and Gen Z. I feel like a digital native because I've had Internet since I was 4, but I know most people my age didn't get Internet until they were 7 to 10ish, so while I never knew a world without Internet, it's not like I can't imagine a world without it.

Or speaking in teenage terms, I was a teen in the 2000s. I even lost my job during the recession. I was in high school when the most popular way of talking to friends outside of school was MSN. That's Gen Y. But I was also in high school when LGBT acceptance was a given, and being a nerd made you a lot of friends instead of a lot of enemies, when Facebook/Twitter took over. That's Gen Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/06/16 at 10:31 pm


Maybe "Y/Z cusp" is the wrong word. But I relate to both Gen Y and Gen Z. I feel like a digital native because I've had Internet since I was 4, but I know most people my age didn't get Internet until they were 7 to 10ish, so while I never knew a world without Internet, it's not like I can't imagine a world without it.

Or speaking in teenage terms, I was a teen in the 2000s. I even lost my job during the recession. I was in high school when the most popular way of talking to friends outside of school was MSN. That's Gen Y. But I was also in high school when LGBT acceptance was a given, and being a nerd made you a lot of friends instead of a lot of enemies, when Facebook/Twitter took over. That's Gen Z.


It's core/late Y too, especially the latter half. A large portion of Gen Y had Myspace, Facebook, and even Twitter and Instagram now as apart of their generation whether they want to admit it or not. Just look at the previous comment I posted about Generation X being the last full generation to grow up fully old school throughout the kid, teen, and young adult stage combined. Early Gen Y is an exception though. Do you realize that the peak of Gen Z is barely out of elementary school right? Heck a lot still in there. Yet look how long social media has already been big.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/06/16 at 10:39 pm


It's core/late Y too, especially the latter half. A large portion of Gen Y had Myspace, Facebook, and even Twitter and Instagram now as apart of their generation whether they want to admit it or not. Just look at the previous comment I posted about Generation X being the last full generation to grow up fully old school throughout the kid, teen, and young adult stage combined. Early Gen Y is an exception though. Do you realize that the peak of Gen Z is barely out of elementary school right? Heck a lot still in there. Yet look how long social media has already been big.


To me core Y is 1984 - 1990, the people who were on university campuses during the 2008 Obama election and were protesting in Occupy etc. 1990 mostly graduated in class of 2008, if I'm correct, so they would not be in high school when the Facebook takeover happened in 2008-09 school year (though if I remember correctly, in the South, late 1990 borns would graduate in 2009?). 1991 is the transition out of core Y year to me, since they graduated 2009. And I generally agree with the Toon's Third Principle (yeah, I'm giving it a name*) that anyone who graduated in the 2010s is late Y at the earliest.

*Toon's First Principle is you have a mostly identical childhood to anyone born +/- 2 years from you.
*Toon's Second Principle is you should be able to easily relate to anyone born +/- 3 years from you, or else you're a real snob or don't have many friends.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 10:41 pm


To me core Y is 1984 - 1990, the people who were on university campuses during the 2008 Obama election and were protesting in Occupy etc. 1990 mostly graduated in class of 2008, if I'm correct, so they would not be in high school when the Facebook takeover happened in 2008-09 school year (though if I remember correctly, in the South, late 1990 borns would graduate in 2009?). 1991 is the transition out of core Y year to me, since they graduated 2009. And I generally agree with the Toon's Third Principle (yeah, I'm giving it a name*) that anyone who graduated in the 2010s is late Y at the earliest.

*Toon's First Principle is you have a mostly identical childhood to anyone born +/- 2 years from you.
*Toon's Second Principle is you should be able to easily relate to anyone born +/- 3 years from you, or else you're a real snob or don't have many friends.

Mid 80s babies are on the cusp of early and core. But they are still early like late 1981-1983ers.
Late 80s babies/VERY EARLY 90s babies(90/91) are the meat and potatoes of Gen Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/06/16 at 10:58 pm


Mid 80s babies are on the cusp of early and core. But they are still early like late 1981-1983ers.
Late 80s babies/VERY EARLY 90s babies(90/91) are the meat and potatoes of Gen Y.


Why do you think so?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 11:14 pm


Why do you think so?

That's EASY! First of all, they were old enough to vote in the 2004 election, most millennials first big election was when Obama got elected in 08. Second of all they became teens during the late 90s. and the 90s was mainly a Gen X decade even though the very late 90s ushered in the Gen Y culture.  Also they were children of the TMNT, NES, Neon, Sega Genesis, EARLY Nick, and HW Bush early 90s era. But they are also kids of the MMPR, SNES, Classic Nickelodeon, Clinton first term, Gangsta rap, and Grunge era.
Most importantly their teen years were during the Y2K phenomenon, Post 9/11 paronia, Glam rap, Nu metal years
Not the Myspace, 50 Cent, Crank and Snap rap, Metacore, early YouTube, Bush rebellion years which define core Gen Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/06/16 at 11:41 pm


That's EASY! First of all, they were old enough to vote in the 2004 election, most millennials first big election was when Obama got elected in 08. Second of all they became teens during the late 90s. and the 90s was mainly a Gen X decade even though the very late 90s ushered in the Gen Y culture.  Also they were children of the TMNT, NES, Neon, Sega Genesis, EARLY Nick, and HW Bush early 90s era. But they are also kids of the MMPR, SNES, Classic Nickelodeon, Clinton first term, Gangsta rap, and Grunge era.
Most importantly their teen years were during the Y2K phenomenon, Post 9/11 paronia, Glam rap, Nu metal years
Not the Myspace, 50 Cent, Crank and Snap rap, Metacore, early YouTube, Bush rebellion years which define core Gen Y.


But you said 1991 was Core Y, yet they were too young to vote for Obama the first time. They had to wait until 2012, when 1992-1994 borns also got to vote for him.

1984-1986 were old enough to vote during the 2004 election which was a pretty lackluster election, but they were still young enough to get into the heart of Obamamania. 18 - 24 is what most describe as youth voters.

I think most people agree that the late 90s was Generation Y culture for teens/adults. People born 1980-1983 were teens during the mid-90s, which makes them early Millennials to me. But 1984 are late 90s teens, 1985/1986 are early 2000s teens when MSN/AOL took over. They were the perfect age for Gen Y kid culture to be already established, and perfect age for Gen Y teen culture to already be established.

I was a teenager during "Myspace, 50 Cent, Crank and Snap rap, Metacore, early YouTube, Bush rebellion years", but we all agree that 1993 is anywhere between late Y and pioneer Z, far away from the core Y years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/07/16 at 12:02 am


But you said 1991 was Core Y, yet they were too young to vote for Obama the first time. They had to wait until 2012, when 1992-1994 borns also got to vote for him.

1984-1986 were old enough to vote during the 2004 election which was a pretty lackluster election, but they were still young enough to get into the heart of Obamamania. 18 - 24 is what most describe as youth voters.

I think most people agree that the late 90s was Generation Y culture for teens/adults. People born 1980-1983 were teens during the mid-90s, which makes them early Millennials to me. But 1984 are late 90s teens, 1985/1986 are early 2000s teens when MSN/AOL took over. They were the perfect age for Gen Y kid culture to be already established, and perfect age for Gen Y teen culture to already be established.

I was a teenager during "Myspace, 50 Cent, Crank and Snap rap, Metacore, early YouTube, Bush rebellion years", but we all agree that 1993 is anywhere between late Y and pioneer Z, far away from the core Y years.

Most 1980ers and 1981 ers graduated in 1998 and 1999. The class of 2000(late 1981/1982) is the first I consider to be millennial. I'm sticking by that one.
Also the early 2000s youth culture was Early Gen Y, NOT Core. and you were a teen during the crank/snap rap era, Myspace, and Metacore years, but you were also a teen during the Electropop, ringtone rap, early Obama years as well..

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 12:08 am


Most 1980ers and 1981 ers graduated in 1998 and 1999. The class of 2000(late 1981/1982) is the first I consider to be millennial. I'm sticking by that one.


1980 is strange to me. It doesn't look Gen X, because they were still teens when the Internet became big, which is very Gen Y. When I think Gen X, I think people who were at least in the workplace or in university when the Internet became big. At the same time, they didn't do much IM'ing in high school in 1997-98 school year. It's a X/Y cusp.

Class of 1999 can be comfortably Gen Y though. 1998-99 high school year is Y. The Internet was well established by then, the pop culture was Gen Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 12:18 am


Most 1980ers and 1981 ers graduated in 1998 and 1999. The class of 2000(late 1981/1982) is the first I consider to be millennial. I'm sticking by that one.
Also the early 2000s youth culture was Early Gen Y, NOT Core. and you were a teen during the crank/snap rap era, Myspace, and Metacore years, but you were also a teen during the Electropop, ringtone rap, early Obama years as well..

Late 90s is early Y to me. Once you go post-boy band and Y2K era into the Iraq War era is when it gets core Millennial to me.

Ringtone rap and Myspace era are the same. Don't remind me!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/07/16 at 12:46 am


Late 90s is early Y to me. Once you go post-boy band and Y2K era into the Iraq War era is when it gets core Millennial to me.

Ringtone rap and Myspace era are the same. Don't remind me!

Yep, I should've clarified that more, The VERY late 90s and early 00s are both Early Gen Y. lol



Also, I was basically saying that the Myspace era  and latter Bush years were different than the electropop and early Obama years.
Basically I'm saying is you were a teen during the late 2000s and early 2010s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/07/16 at 12:52 am

I always felt like the 1998-2003 era still had some Gen X leftovers despite being predominately early millennial.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 1:07 am


I always felt like the 1998-2003 era still had some Gen X leftovers despite being predominately early millennial.

2003 I'd say politically was very Core Y because you had the Iraq War that year. I'm not sure about 1998-2002 having Gen X, you'd probably know more about that :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/07/16 at 1:13 am

From this discussion, I have in common with those up to 5 years older and younger (more on the former) as most of my friends are from the first half of the 90s. Now I can't understand how I'm a late millennial when I could (and did) vote for Obama in 2012 and my adolescence was predominantly in the Bush administration/Myspace era. What about the early 10s college culture? It was mostly Millennial. I understand I was an adolescent in the early 10s, but it was basically my HS senior year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/07/16 at 1:14 am


2003 I'd say politically was very Core Y because you had the Iraq War that year. I'm not sure about 1998-2002 having Gen X, you'd probably know more about that :P


I see you point. Not just for the Iraq War but the DVD/XP overtaking and the beginnings of faux-Emo and Myspace. But, you still had the fads and trends of 1998-2002 still going strong and the mid 00's was still developing. 2003 is in the middle if you ask me. ;D Here's an simple example: I see the Pop Punk bands that we like as X/Millennial bands. They pretty much built upon the Dookie sound (with strong Screeching Weasel influences too) and I knew a lot of 1979/1980 dudes who were really into it. I can't say the same about Cork Tree and American Idiot. That era is really removed from Punk in general, in my opinion. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 2:16 am


I see you point. Not just for the Iraq War but the DVD/XP overtaking and the beginnings of faux-Emo and Myspace. But, you still had the fads and trends of 1998-2002 still going strong and the mid 00's was still developing. 2003 is in the middle if you ask me. ;D Here's an simple example: I see the Pop Punk bands that we like as X/Millennial bands. They pretty much built upon the Dookie sound (with strong Screeching Weasel influences too) and I knew a lot of 1979/1980 dudes who were really into it. I can't say the same about Cork Tree and American Idiot. That era is really removed from Punk in general, in my opinion.


I'm not the most fleunt on the years, but I believe Grunge was still kicking until 1997, wasn't it? Then in the late 90s, I mean it's not rock, but you had the Spice Girls, the Backstreet Boys, NSYNC in 1996-1998, I think these are the bands that people consider Y. Also I know you consider early 2000s rock to be distinct from mid-2000s rock, but surely you must have noticed that most the mid-2000s bands were basically the late 90s/early 2000s bands updating their sound to fit the mid-2000s era? In that sense, it's not a completely discontinuous shift.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 2:31 am


From this discussion, I have in common with those up to 5 years older and younger (more on the former) as most of my friends are from the first half of the 90s. Now I can't understand how I'm a late millennial when I could (and did) vote for Obama in 2012 and my adolescence was predominantly in the Bush administration/Myspace era. What about the early 10s college culture? It was mostly Millennial. I understand I was an adolescent in the early 10s, but it was basically my HS senior year.


I think by late millennial, it just means you're not core millennial. To be core millennial I'd say you should have voted in 2008 rather than 2012. Having our adolescence in the 2000s is probably what keeps 1993 comfortably in Gen Y though.

Yeah, early 2010s university was comfortably Gen Y. It was mostly 1987 - 1993 borns when I went in in 2011 and got into school clubs and stuff, but of course a wide variety of ages attend university, and also not everyone goes for a post-secondary education. (but most Millennials do). In Canada you had the Toronto G20 protests in 2010, Montreal Student protests in 2012, (and the Harlem Shake in 2013) which I consider to be Gen Y LOL

Late Gen Y in da house!!

ae8lpll7qeQ
Jr6K3I8XLDE

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/07/16 at 2:44 am


I'm not the most fleunt on the years, but I believe Grunge was still kicking until 1997, wasn't it? Then in the late 90s, I mean it's not rock, but you had the Spice Girls, the Backstreet Boys, NSYNC in 1996-1998, I think these are the bands that people consider Y. Also I know you consider early 2000s rock to be distinct from mid-2000s rock, but surely you must have noticed that most the mid-2000s bands were basically the late 90s/early 2000s bands updating their sound to fit the mid-2000s era? In that sense, it's not a completely discontinuous shift.


Yep! When I was in High School, 1997 was the last year of the Grunge style for sure. And yeah, I'd say those bands are definitely Millennial bands (groups? bands? who knows!). I think you've seen my rants about how the bands changed their sounds. :P Bands like Sum 41, Home Grown, blink-182, NFG, The Used, My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy had that X/early Millennial Y2K sound in 1998-2002 and changed their style in 2003-2004. Even Green Day and The Offspring changed their sounds and they're both (or were) X bands. I still continue 1998-2002
~a different time from the rest of the 2000's but I can see why one would say it's not a total discontinuous shift.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/07/16 at 6:41 am


That's EASY! First of all, they were old enough to vote in the 2004 election, most millennials first big election was when Obama got elected in 08. Second of all they became teens during the late 90s. and the 90s was mainly a Gen X decade even though the very late 90s ushered in the Gen Y culture.  Also they were children of the TMNT, NES, Neon, Sega Genesis, EARLY Nick, and HW Bush early 90s era. But they are also kids of the MMPR, SNES, Classic Nickelodeon, Clinton first term, Gangsta rap, and Grunge era.
Most importantly their teen years were during the Y2K phenomenon, Post 9/11 paronia, Glam rap, Nu metal years
Not the Myspace, 50 Cent, Crank and Snap rap, Metacore, early YouTube, Bush rebellion years which define core Gen Y.


I agree with this! So by that definition that would make those born from 1981-1986 Early Gen Y; 1987-1991 as Core Y, & 1992-1997 as Late Y! X/Y Cusps would be those born from 1977-1980 & Y/Z Cusps would be those born from 1998-2001!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 02/07/16 at 6:43 am


But you said 1991 was Core Y, yet they were too young to vote for Obama the first time. They had to wait until 2012, when 1992-1994 borns also got to vote for him.

1984-1986 were old enough to vote during the 2004 election which was a pretty lackluster election, but they were still young enough to get into the heart of Obamamania. 18 - 24 is what most describe as youth voters.

I think most people agree that the late 90s was Generation Y culture for teens/adults. People born 1980-1983 were teens during the mid-90s, which makes them early Millennials to me. But 1984 are late 90s teens, 1985/1986 are early 2000s teens when MSN/AOL took over. They were the perfect age for Gen Y kid culture to be already established, and perfect age for Gen Y teen culture to already be established.

I was a teenager during "Myspace, 50 Cent, Crank and Snap rap, Metacore, early YouTube, Bush rebellion years", but we all agree that 1993 is anywhere between late Y and pioneer Z, far away from the core Y years.
I think that 1991 borns can fit easily into core Y because they spent all their high school years in the 2000s and their youth was immersed in core 2000s pop culture such as crunk, emo, MySpace, etc so while we may have been a bit too young to vote in the 2008 election we pretty much spent our youth experiencing the quintessential culture of what the decade had to offer as teens, and going back to an earlier comment that you had posted you had labeled 1991 borns as generation Z and there couldn't be anything further than the truth than that. I have heard some websites site 1991 as generation z which I think is outright ridiculous hell we aren't even y/z cusp, we are just firmly Gen y. I think it is more about your cultural experience that determines your generation although political awareness does play some part in it, but mostly pop culture. Being born in 1991 I can easily remember a time in my life before I had the internet and that is definitely quintessential to being a Gen y member.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/07/16 at 9:11 am


You are Generation X, he is Millennial. His kid and teen cultures were very different from yours. The change in birth patterns, attitudes towards babies and young children, and the way in which popular culture played out and evolved and changed made two people born only four years apart have very different experiences in life. Someone born in 1981 has practically nothing in common with someone born in 1985. As a matter of fact, 1985 babies culturally have more in common with someone born in 1989 than 1981. 1981 is a '90s teen, whereas 1985 and 1989 are '00s teens. An early '00s high school experience was much more like a mid '00s one than a late '90s one. It's like the Silent Generation/Baby Boomer gap. Such a short period of space yet such an enormous difference in attitude and mindset and tastes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/07/16 at 9:19 am


I agree with this! So by that definition that would make those born from 1981-1986 Early Gen Y; 1987-1991 as Core Y, & 1992-1997 as Late Y! X/Y Cusps would be those born from 1977-1980 & Y/Z Cusps would be those born from 1998-2001!


Weren't 2001 babies in kindergarten back in the 2006-2007 school year? That was definitely the rise of Z, according to you guys. I can get 1999 and 2000 babies being Y/Z cusps, since they started Kindergarten in Y/Z cusp years, but 2001 is more Z compared to them. Or unless, Y culture sneaked in late 2006 and early 2007 where '01 babies can remember it, I guess.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/07/16 at 9:30 am


I think by late millennial, it just means you're not core millennial. To be core millennial I'd say you should have voted in 2008 rather than 2012. Having our adolescence in the 2000s is probably what keeps 1993 comfortably in Gen Y though.

Yeah, early 2010s university was comfortably Gen Y. It was mostly 1987 - 1993 borns when I went in in 2011 and got into school clubs and stuff, but of course a wide variety of ages attend university, and also not everyone goes for a post-secondary education. (but most Millennials do). In Canada you had the Toronto G20 protests in 2010, Montreal Student protests in 2012, (and the Harlem Shake in 2013) which I consider to be Gen Y LOL

Late Gen Y in da house!!

ae8lpll7qeQ
Jr6K3I8XLDE


There should be more features on the core/late millennial group. Just being able to vote in 2008 isn't enough. The main factors should be characteristics, events, and miscellaneous. That's what all generations are defined by.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/07/16 at 9:42 am


You are Generation X, he is Millennial. His kid and teen cultures were very different from yours. The change in birth patterns, attitudes towards babies and young children, and the way in which popular culture played out and evolved and changed made two people born only four years apart have very different experiences in life. Someone born in 1981 has practically nothing in common with someone born in 1985. As a matter of fact, 1985 babies culturally have more in common with someone born in 1989 than 1981. 1981 is a '90s teen, whereas 1985 and 1989 are '00s teens. An early '00s high school experience was much more like a mid '00s one than a late '90s one. It's like the Silent Generation/Baby Boomer gap. Such a short period of space yet such an enormous difference in attitude and mindset and tastes.


Now that we are adults I can see a lot of differences in our mindset the way we handle everyday issues when it comes to things like cash, and our view on living life. I'm thinking maybe everyone who is from his generation are more responsible and independent. Not that I'm complaining about my generation or anything. This is us daily:


Cash:
Me: "I want to go shopping today!"
Him: "No, you have to save money."

Me:"I don't know how much I have"
Him:" I write down how much I spend so I know how much I'll have at the end of the day."

He is much more responsible and I'm more spontaneous.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 10:31 am


I think that 1991 borns can fit easily into core Y because they spent all their high school years in the 2000s and their youth was immersed in core 2000s pop culture such as crunk, emo, MySpace, etc so while we may have been a bit too young to vote in the 2008 election we pretty much spent our youth experiencing the quintessential culture of what the decade had to offer as teens, and going back to an earlier comment that you had posted you had labeled 1991 borns as generation Z and there couldn't be anything further than the truth than that. I have heard some websites site 1991 as generation z which I think is outright ridiculous hell we aren't even y/z cusp, we are just firmly Gen y. I think it is more about your cultural experience that determines your generation although political awareness does play some part in it, but mostly pop culture. Being born in 1991 I can easily remember a time in my life before I had the internet and that is definitely quintessential to being a Gen y member.


What I can agree with is that 1991 is clear-cut Y, they're not close to Generation Z. However you guys were still only in high school when the 2008 election was happening, while people born 1990 were in university or at a job. Not only that, you were in high school during 2008-09 school year, so Facebook and Twitter and a lot of electropop would have been a part of your high school experience during your last year. Someone in your graduating class probably had a touchscreen smartphone, although I know they weren't completely popular even when I graduated in 2010. You caught a "glimpse" into what it was like to be in high school in the 2010s, although obviously not as well as people born 92/93.

It's a tricky year because you had all your teenage years in the 2000s (except 2010) in, as you said, the MySpace, Mean Girls era, but I think since you guys were still high school teenagers when it came to events you should have been adults for (2008 election, Occupy, Great Recession) and of course being a high school teen at a time of rapid changes (Facebook, Twitter, the rise of LGBT acceptance, the rise of the nerds, the electropop era etc.), it would make you guys late Y.  Now I'm not saying you should have more in common with those born 93/94 than 1990, "Generation" doesn't have much to do with that. For that you can refer to Toon's Second Principle that you should have an identical childhood/teenage to those born +/- 2 years from you.

You can remember a time before Internet? Even when no one else had Internet? When did you get it? I got it late 96/early 97, so if you were my older brother or something you would probably have a hard time remembering life before Internet :P It all depends though. A lot of people didn't get Internet until 1999-2003.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 10:53 am


There should be more features on the core/late millennial group. Just being able to vote in 2008 isn't enough. The main factors should be characteristics, events, and miscellaneous. That's what all generations are defined by.


Which events would you say make core Y?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/07/16 at 12:37 pm


From this discussion, I have in common with those up to 5 years older and younger (more on the former) as most of my friends are from the first half of the 90s. Now I can't understand how I'm a late millennial when I could (and did) vote for Obama in 2012 and my adolescence was predominantly in the Bush administration/Myspace era. What about the early 10s college culture? It was mostly Millennial. I understand I was an adolescent in the early 10s, but it was basically my HS senior year.

You ARE a late millennial because first off you were STILL a teen during the electropop, recession, early Obama years. You may have been in your late teens but still a teen. Also Core Y would be the 2008 election NOT the 2012 one with Romney and Obama. Just my two cents.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/07/16 at 12:38 pm


What I can agree with is that 1991 is clear-cut Y, they're not close to Generation Z. However you guys were still only in high school when the 2008 election was happening, while people born 1990 were in university or at a job. Not only that, you were in high school during 2008-09 school year, so Facebook and Twitter and a lot of electropop would have been a part of your high school experience during your last year. Someone in your graduating class probably had a touchscreen smartphone, although I know they weren't completely popular even when I graduated in 2010. You caught a "glimpse" into what it was like to be in high school in the 2010s, although obviously not as well as people born 92/93.

It's a tricky year because you had all your teenage years in the 2000s (except 2010) in, as you said, the MySpace, Mean Girls era, but I think since you guys were still high school teenagers when it came to events you should have been adults for (2008 election, Occupy, Great Recession) and of course being a high school teen at a time of rapid changes (Facebook, Twitter, the rise of LGBT acceptance, the rise of the nerds, the electropop era etc.), it would make you guys late Y.  Now I'm not saying you should have more in common with those born 93/94 than 1990, "Generation" doesn't have much to do with that. For that you can refer to Toon's Second Principle that you should have an identical childhood/teenage to those born +/- 2 years from you.

You can remember a time before Internet? Even when no one else had Internet? When did you get it? I got it late 96/early 97, so if you were my older brother or something you would probably have a hard time remembering life before Internet :P It all depends though. A lot of people didn't get Internet until 1999-2003.

Yeah 1991ers and 1992ers are on the cups of core and late.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/07/16 at 12:42 pm


Which events would you say make core Y?

I'll try to keep it short and sweet. Core Y would be, being a kid during the heart of the 90s, a kid during majority of the Clinton years, being a teen during the core 2000s, during the Mean Girls, Ipod, Myspace, Crank and snap rap era, Metacore era, Coming of age in the late 2000s, being able to vote when Obama came in. Being in college or starting in the workforce when the economic crash happened. Those are the few I can think of.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/07/16 at 1:29 pm


Yeah 1991ers and 1992ers are on the cusp of core and late.


I always said this too!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/07/16 at 1:44 pm


Which events would you say make core Y?
Adding to what Eazyman said, there's 9/11, the Iraq war, the turn of the millennium and the 2000 election. One thing we should talk about is the attributes. Regarding some, there is optimism, narcissism, team effort, tech-dependent (we're not actually tech savvy) and marshmallow.


You ARE a late millennial because first off you were STILL a teen during the electropop, recession, early Obama years. You may have been in your late teens but still a teen. Also Core Y would be the 2008 election NOT the 2012 one with Romney and Obama. Just my two cents.
I'm not denying that. I understand I was a teenager in the early 10s, but I feel I'm in between core and late. Everything Slowpoke stated is what I witnessed throughout HS. The transition from Myspace to FB; half of my HS career was during GWB's administration; the Great recession; rise of LGBT acceptance and electropop and the 2008 election.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/07/16 at 1:46 pm


I was a teenager from 2006 - 2012, which is why I feel Y/Z cusp. I'm both a 2000s teen and a 2010s teen!

My favourite school year was 2009-10 school year, the one where we thought the world was going to end because the Hadron Collider was going to make a black hole LOL.

Being a 2000s teen was really miserable, people were homophobic and if you were good at math you would get bullied. I loved the "kumbaya" moment we all had in 2009-10 school year when the nerds took over school and bullying became super uncool. It was the only high school year I didn't feel sub-human. I "experienced" both but I liked being a 2010s teen more, by far. Of course I graduated in 2010 and got a full-time job, so I'm not sure if I'm young enough to be a full blown 2010s teen.


Yeah, you and me are definitely too old to be full blown 2010s teens. The way I see it, you have to be a teen during the majority of the decade to be considered a teen of said decade. My sister, for example, was a teen from mid 2000-mid 2007. So she'd definitely be a 2000s teen.

It's interesting that you mentioned that the 2009-2010 school year was a "kumbaya" moment. It's probably different depending on the high school, especially since we're both in different countries. I went to a number different of high schools. The first high school I went to, for my first two years of high school, was already pretty open and accepting. But the next high school I went to was totally different. I remember feeling most like an outcast in my junior year, which was 2010-2011. Perhaps that "kumbaya" moment faded away after the 2009-2010 school year? I don't know.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/07/16 at 1:51 pm


To me core Y is 1984 - 1990, the people who were on university campuses during the 2008 Obama election and were protesting in Occupy etc. 1990 mostly graduated in class of 2008, if I'm correct, so they would not be in high school when the Facebook takeover happened in 2008-09 school year (though if I remember correctly, in the South, late 1990 borns would graduate in 2009?). 1991 is the transition out of core Y year to me, since they graduated 2009. And I generally agree with the Toon's Third Principle (yeah, I'm giving it a name*) that anyone who graduated in the 2010s is late Y at the earliest.

*Toon's First Principle is you have a mostly identical childhood to anyone born +/- 2 years from you.
*Toon's Second Principle is you should be able to easily relate to anyone born +/- 3 years from you, or else you're a real snob or don't have many friends.



Pretty much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/07/16 at 1:55 pm

This makes me bring up the question, does anybody think that this upcoming 2016 election is the first true Gen Z election? It's a new president. 1995-1998 born's are voting for the first time while ironically a lot of sources start Z around this time. But I still think we're Y/Z cusp though. Hey, people say that the 2008 election is core Y and the 2012 election is late Y. The 2004 election is early Y while the 2000 election is X/Y cusp.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/07/16 at 1:57 pm


This makes me bring up the question, does anybody think that this upcoming 2016 election is the first true Gen Z election? It's a new president. 1995-1998 born's are voting for the first time while ironically a lot of sources start Z around this time. But I still think we're Y/Z cusp though. Hey, people say that the 2008 election is core Y and the 2012 election is late Y. The 2004 election is early Y while the 2000 election is X/Y cusp.

Nope the 2024 is probably going to be the first true Z election, 2020 is going to be Early Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/07/16 at 1:57 pm


I'm not the most fleunt on the years, but I believe Grunge was still kicking until 1997, wasn't it? Then in the late 90s, I mean it's not rock, but you had the Spice Girls, the Backstreet Boys, NSYNC in 1996-1998, I think these are the bands that people consider Y. Also I know you consider early 2000s rock to be distinct from mid-2000s rock, but surely you must have noticed that most the mid-2000s bands were basically the late 90s/early 2000s bands updating their sound to fit the mid-2000s era? In that sense, it's not a completely discontinuous shift.


I think it was mostly the fashion that was still popular, but not the music. Then again, this is the perspective of someone who was a preschooler at the time, so I am probably not the most reliable source of information  :P

Though I do remember that me and my sister had an 18 year old babysitter, who was really into grunge fashion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/07/16 at 2:00 pm


I agree with this! So by that definition that would make those born from 1981-1986 Early Gen Y; 1987-1991 as Core Y, & 1992-1997 as Late Y! X/Y Cusps would be those born from 1977-1980 & Y/Z Cusps would be those born from 1998-2001!


Sounds about right.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 02/07/16 at 3:23 pm

What about this?

Early Millennials (1981-1986)
Core Millennials (1987-1993)
Late Millennials (1994-2000)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 4:48 pm


Yeah 1991ers and 1992ers are on the cups of core and late.


Having cusp cores and cusp lates sounds like a bit too much to me. You're either core or you're late ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/07/16 at 4:49 pm


Having cusp cores and cusp lates sounds like a bit too much to me. You're either core or you're late ;D


That should be a slogan for generation cusps.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/07/16 at 4:54 pm


That should be a slogan for generation cusps.


*snicker*  :-X

Lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/07/16 at 4:58 pm


What about this?

Early Millennials (1981-1986)
Core Millennials (1987-1993)
Late Millennials (1994-2000)


You can't have 5 years in the early section and 6 years in the late section, it doesn't make mathematical sense. Anyways, I'm sort of torn on starting Y in 1981 or 1982, because 81ers were part of the Class of 1999 which was undeniably Y culture while the 82ers were the first to graduate in the 2000's...

For now I would say that the barriers are this:

1981-1986: Early Y (Ultimate Early Yer: 1984)

1987-1991: Core Y (Ultimate Core Yer: 1989)

1992-1997: Late Y (Ultimate Late Yer: 1995)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/07/16 at 5:02 pm


This makes me bring up the question, does anybody think that this upcoming 2016 election is the first true Gen Z election? It's a new president. 1995-1998 born's are voting for the first time while ironically a lot of sources start Z around this time. But I still think we're Y/Z cusp though. Hey, people say that the 2008 election is core Y and the 2012 election is late Y. The 2004 election is early Y while the 2000 election is X/Y cusp.


I'd say its the VERY Late Y or Y/Z Cusp Election

2020 would be the Early Z Election

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 5:27 pm


You can't have 5 years in the early section and 6 years in the late section, it doesn't make mathematical sense. Anyways, I'm sort of torn on starting Y in 1981 or 1982, because 81ers were part of the Class of 1999 which was undeniably Y culture while the 82ers were the first to graduate in the 2000's...

For now I would say that the barriers are this:

1981-1986: Early Y (Ultimate Early Yer: 1984)

1987-1991: Core Y (Ultimate Core Yer: 1989)

1992-1997: Late Y (Ultimate Late Yer: 1995)


Does it make sense that the core Y is the smallest range of the three? I think it should be the biggest by a good margin, or else Gen Y wouldn't have much of a strong identity.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/07/16 at 5:46 pm


You can't have 5 years in the early section and 6 years in the late section, it doesn't make mathematical sense. Anyways, I'm sort of torn on starting Y in 1981 or 1982, because 81ers were part of the Class of 1999 which was undeniably Y culture while the 82ers were the first to graduate in the 2000's...

For now I would say that the barriers are this:

1981-1986: Early Y (Ultimate Early Yer: 1984)

1987-1991: Core Y (Ultimate Core Yer: 1989)

1992-1997: Late Y (Ultimate Late Yer: 1995)


So does that make post-1997 babies Z and nothing more?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 6:11 pm


Yeah, you and me are definitely too old to be full blown 2010s teens. The way I see it, you have to be a teen during the majority of the decade to be considered a teen of said decade. My sister, for example, was a teen from mid 2000-mid 2007. So she'd definitely be a 2000s teen.

It's interesting that you mentioned that the 2009-2010 school year was a "kumbaya" moment. It's probably different depending on the high school, especially since we're both in different countries. I went to a number different of high schools. The first high school I went to, for my first two years of high school, was already pretty open and accepting. But the next high school I went to was totally different. I remember feeling most like an outcast in my junior year, which was 2010-2011. Perhaps that "kumbaya" moment faded away after the 2009-2010 school year? I don't know.


Yeah the 2000s portion of my adolescence lasted longer, I thought it was never going to end. The 2010s part didn't last long enough!

Interesting, it's not what I usually hear from other folks. Most people pin the rise of nerd/geek culture to 2008-09 school year, and the next year would be the first full year of it. I think I might have some personal bias leaking into my assessment, because the bullies (I guess "jocks") in my school got expelled in 2008-09 school year. They thought it would be hilarious to charge and choke a ginger kid like they were the Undertaker. They got expelled shortly afterwards and the school atmosphere became quickly relaxed. The other bullies who didn't get caught up in that also reduced their activities, I even became friends with them some of them in 2009-10 strangely enough, I decided to move on. But even before they were expelled I noticed that people were standing up to them more and more that year (2008-09). Like this knuckle-head who tried to pick on me because I had a Shy Guy (from Mario) phone charm (yeah, I got bullied over THAT). He was 6 foot 4, and I was only like 5 foot 9 back then, and he had me cornered and by the collar. That's when the hottest girl in school stood up for me and told him he was being an idiot and to f*** off. That was the first time anyone stood up for me, I feel like it was that year when bullying/mid-2000s macho culture started being seen as uncool.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 02/07/16 at 8:13 pm

The last year of the Millennial generation is 1999 at the earliest. At the latest, 2001.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/07/16 at 8:21 pm


The last year of the Millennial generation is 199 at the earliest. At the latest, 2001.


I'd say 1997 or the Class of 2015 at the very earliest

2001 or the Class of 2019 at the very latest

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/07/16 at 8:50 pm


This makes me bring up the question, does anybody think that this upcoming 2016 election is the first true Gen Z election? It's a new president. 1995-1998 born's are voting for the first time while ironically a lot of sources start Z around this time. But I still think we're Y/Z cusp though. Hey, people say that the 2008 election is core Y and the 2012 election is late Y. The 2004 election is early Y while the 2000 election is X/Y cusp.


I don't think true Z count with early Z babies. Even though it's controversial, since some people think I'm a Y/Z cusp. I think the 2020 election would count as the first Z election, since it would have people born from 1999-October 2002 voting for president.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/08/16 at 2:15 am


The last year of the Millennial generation is 1999 at the earliest. At the latest, 2001.

Hey, I'm interested why you feel you have more in common with a 1998er than a 1992er. ???  I see a 92er as kind of an older sibling and a 98er as a younger sibling type. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Richbrings2life on 02/08/16 at 7:35 am

1981-1986: Early Y (Ultimate Early Yer: 1984): TMNT/American Pie generation

1987-1991: Core Y (Ultimate Core Yer: 1989): Power Rangers/Mean Girls generation

1992-1997: Late Y (Ultimate Late Yer: 1995): Pokemon/Twilight Generation

IMO

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/08/16 at 8:55 am


1981-1986: Early Y (Ultimate Early Yer: 1984): TMNT/American Pie generation

1987-1991: Core Y (Ultimate Core Yer: 1989): Power Rangers/Mean Girls generation

1992-1997: Late Y (Ultimate Late Yer: 1995): Pokemon/Twilight Generation

IMO


THIS.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/08/16 at 8:58 am


Hey, I'm interested why you feel you have more in common with a 1998er than a 1992er. ???  I see a 92er as kind of an older sibling and a 98er as a younger sibling type. ;D


But weren't you guys born in Late 95'? That would make you 2-2 1/2 years older than a 98er and 3-3 1/2 years younger than a 92er. So your closer in age to a 98er. Now if you were born in early or mid 95' I could see where your coming from as that would be an equal age difference

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/08/16 at 10:34 am


But weren't you guys born in Late 95'? That would make you 2-2 1/2 years older than a 98er and 3-3 1/2 years younger than a 92er. So your closer in age to a 98er. Now if you were born in early or mid 95' I could see where your coming from as that would be an equal age difference

All I was saying that I kinda see a 92er as an older sibling and I see a 98er as a younger sibling!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/08/16 at 10:54 am


All I was saying that I kinda see a 92er as an older sibling and I see a 98er as a younger sibling!


I get where your coming from but mosr people from 98' would be 2-3 years younger than you while most people from 92' would be 3-4 years older than you. So I'm just trying to figure out when does the differences start to feel noticeable for you?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/08/16 at 4:48 pm


I get where your coming from but most people from 98' would be 2-3 years younger than you while most people from 92' would be 3-4 years older than you. So I'm just trying to figure out when does the differences start to feel noticeable for you?

Well, I said what I said earlier is because a 92er is a true late 90s and early 00s kid hybrid, and a 98er is a TRUE 00s kid.
Also a 92er's teen years were during the Myspace, Crank and Snap rap, and metacore era also it was during the electropop, twitter, recession era, early Obama years.  And a 98er is a true 2010s teen, predominantly during the ''core'' 10s.
Like I said before, it's a no win scenario! ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/08/16 at 4:53 pm


Well, I said what I said earlier is because a 92er is a true late 90s and early 00s kid hybrid, and a 98er is a TRUE 00s kid.
Also a 92er's teen years were during the Myspace, Crank and Snap rap, and metacore era also it was during the electropop, twitter, recession era, early Obama years.  And a 98er is a true 2010s teen, predominantly during the ''core'' 10s.
Like I said before, it's a no win scenario! ;D


You got a point there! Our core childhoods were in the early-mid 00's, inbetween 92ers core years from the late 90's-early 00's and the 98ers core years in the mid-late 00's. On top of that our teen years were inbetween the core 00's where 92ers were teens and the core 10's where 98ers were teens. Its weird to think how someone just a couple years younger than me had a pretty significant difference in how they grew up (especially teen years).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/08/16 at 5:00 pm


You got a point there! Our core childhoods were in the early-mid 00's, inbetween 92ers core years from the late 90's-early 00's and the 98ers core years in the mid-late 00's. On top of that our teen years were inbetween the core 00's where 92ers were teens and the core 10's where 98ers were teens. Its weird to think how someone just a couple years younger than me had a pretty significant difference in how they grew up (especially teen years).

EXACTLY brotha! :) 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/08/16 at 5:54 pm

I'm spring 1987 born to baby boomer parents, I personally consider myself somewhere in-between early and middle gen y. I have a lot of more old school memories from the early '90s that people born in the early '90s don't have. I was an adolescent on 9/11/01 and remember it VERY well and the impact of it. These days I turn 29 in May and I'm not really into current pop culture as much anymore. Technology is starting to become too much these days as much as I grew up loving it. I miss not being quite as constantly "connected".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/08/16 at 7:12 pm


I'm spring 1987 born to baby boomer parents, I personally consider myself somewhere in-between early and middle gen y. I have a lot of more old school memories from the early '90s that people born in the early '90s don't have. I was an adolescent on 9/11/01 and remember it VERY well and the impact of it. These days I turn 29 in May and I'm not really into current pop culture as much anymore. Technology is starting to become too much these days as much as I grew up loving it. I miss not being quite as constantly "connected".


I consider 1987 to be core because the first presidential election you guys got to vote for was 2008. You'd probably prefer my definition of core Millennial being 1984 - 1990 over the "1987-1991" or "1987-1993" definitions I'm seeing here  :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/08/16 at 7:21 pm


I consider 1987 to be core because the first presidential election you guys got to vote for was 2008.


Yeah and I get that, but I remember the early '90s as a young child and was a teen in the early '00s. A lot of the "core Y" were still little kids on 9/11 so I don't relate to that as well. I was an adolescent in the early '00s. I felt too old for stuff like "Harry Potter" or "Pokemon" and was more into the youth culture of the early '00s than the childhood stuff. But like I said I consider myself borderline, especially being first half of 1987. Later '87 is probably more core y, but I'll always argue I (early '87) could go both ways.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/08/16 at 7:24 pm


Yeah and I get that, but I remember the early '90s as a young child and was a teen in the early '00s. A lot of the "core Y" were still little kids on 9/11 so I don't relate to that as well. I was an adolescent in the early '00s. I felt too old for stuff like "Harry Potter" or "Pokemon" and was more into the youth culture of the early '00s than the childhood stuff. But like I said I consider myself borderline, especially being first half of 1987. Later '87 is probably more core y, but I'll always argue I (early '87) could go both ways.


What is your opinion on 1984 - 1990 being "core Y"? I chose those years because you guys would be the "youth voters" of the 2008 election, and also the right ages to be in other movements like Occupy, and you would also be the young adults of the Great Recession, entering a really bad economy/job market.

You guys were also kids of the 90s and teens of the 2000s, young adults of the late 2000s/early 2010s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/08/16 at 7:51 pm


What is your opinion on 1984 - 1990 being "core Y"? I chose those years because you guys would be the "youth voters" of the 2008 election, and also the right ages to be in other movements like Occupy, and you would also be the young adults of the Great Recession, entering a really bad economy/job market.

You guys were also kids of the 90s and teens of the 2000s, young adults of the late 2000s/early 2010s.


Yeah and tbh everybody's "position" within a generation is different so it's a never ending argument in a way. And yeah to me 84-90 or so is my immediate "age group". I definitely relate more to mid '80s born than mid '90s say (I'm much closer in age). Mid '90s born people to me seem very young, not quite young enough where I could be their father but big gap.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/08/16 at 9:02 pm


I'm spring 1987 born to baby boomer parents, I personally consider myself somewhere in-between early and middle gen y. I have a lot of more old school memories from the early '90s that people born in the early '90s don't have. I was an adolescent on 9/11/01 and remember it VERY well and the impact of it. These days I turn 29 in May and I'm not really into current pop culture as much anymore. Technology is starting to become too much these days as much as I grew up loving it. I miss not being quite as constantly "connected".


I 100% agree with your opinion on 1987 born's! In fact, I'm not surprised that you believe that you're a mixture of early Y and core Y, while you say that you were too old for Harry Potter and Pokemon by the time those got big! You and Eric are hitting all cylinders right now!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 02/08/16 at 9:29 pm


I consider 1987 to be core because the first presidential election you guys got to vote for was 2008. You'd probably prefer my definition of core Millennial being 1984 - 1990 over the "1987-1991" or "1987-1993" definitions I'm seeing here  :P


Yeah, for what it's worth, I've personally always felt that the absolute core of "Gen Y" is right around 1987-88.

I mean, we're pretty much the perfect age to fit all of the traditional Millennial stereotypes. We were the perfect age to be into all of the major '90s kid fads (Power Rangers, Pogs, SNES vs. Genesis, and the like), the perfect age to be Nu Metalheads in the early '00s, the perfect age to be Emo kids in the mid '00s, were in college during the time of the Iraq War backlash/start of the Great Recession/rise of Barack Obama/etc., and are largely the musicians, star athletes, and young actors driving pop culture in the 2010's.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not actually bragging about being a "Core Millennial", mind you. Hating on Millennials is really en vouge in the media these days, so being considered a "core" part of the generation is not exactly a badge of honor. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/08/16 at 9:36 pm


Yeah, for what it's worth, I've personally always felt that the absolute core of "Gen Y" is right around 1987-88.

I mean, we're pretty much the perfect age to fit all of the traditional Millennial stereotypes. We were the perfect age to be into all of the major '90s kid fads (Power Rangers, Pogs, SNES vs. Genesis, and the like), the perfect age to be Nu Metalheads in the early '00s, the perfect age to be Emo kids in the mid '00s, were in college during the time of the Iraq War backlash/start of the Great Recession/rise of Barack Obama/etc., and are largely the musicians, star athletes, and young actors driving pop culture in the 2010's.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not actually bragging about being a "Core Millennial", mind you. Hating on Millennials is really en vouge in the media these days, so being considered a "core" part of the generation is not exactly a badge of honor. ;D

Almost spot on, except I'd say 1987-90 born are the absolute heart of Gen Y!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/08/16 at 9:37 pm


Yeah, for what it's worth, I've personally always felt that the absolute core of "Gen Y" is right around 1987-88.

I mean, we're pretty much the perfect age to fit all of the traditional Millennial stereotypes. We were the perfect age to be into all of the major '90s kid fads (Power Rangers, Pogs, SNES vs. Genesis, and the like), the perfect age to be Nu Metalheads in the early '00s, the perfect age to be Emo kids in the mid '00s, were in college during the time of the Iraq War backlash/start of the Great Recession/rise of Barack Obama/etc., and are largely the musicians, star athletes, and young actors driving pop culture in the 2010's.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not actually bragging about being a "Core Millennial", mind you. Hating on Millennials is really en vouge in the media these days, so being considered a "core" part of the generation is not exactly a badge of honor. ;D


I actually think the core is more around the 1990 borns. Though it depends on where you begin and end the generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/08/16 at 10:38 pm

BTW Brian I haven't seen you on this board, it feels like in a LONG TIME! :o ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/08/16 at 10:56 pm


BTW Brian I haven't seen you on this board, it feels like in a LONG TIME! :o ;D


Well it has been awhile, I hadn't been on here since August 2013 it looks like. 2 1/2 years absent.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/08/16 at 11:54 pm


I consider 1987 to be core because the first presidential election you guys got to vote for was 2008. You'd probably prefer my definition of core Millennial being 1984 - 1990 over the "1987-1991" or "1987-1993" definitions I'm seeing here :P



Yeah, for what it's worth, I've personally always felt that the absolute core of "Gen Y" is right around 1987-88.

I mean, we're pretty much the perfect age to fit all of the traditional Millennial stereotypes. We were the perfect age to be into all of the major '90s kid fads (Power Rangers, Pogs, SNES vs. Genesis, and the like), the perfect age to be Nu Metalheads in the early '00s, the perfect age to be Emo kids in the mid '00s, were in college during the time of the Iraq War backlash/start of the Great Recession/rise of Barack Obama/etc., and are largely the musicians, star athletes, and young actors driving pop culture in the 2010's.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not actually bragging about being a "Core Millennial", mind you. Hating on Millennials is really en vouge in the media these days, so being considered a "core" part of the generation is not exactly a badge of honor. ;D



Almost spot on, except I'd say 1987-90 born are the absolute heart of Gen Y!



I actually think the core is more around the 1990 borns. Though it depends on where you begin and end the generation.


Well the problem is that we're still not sure on when the generation begins and ends. If you guys look look up the old definition and articles, it stated the 1977-1994 demographic; however, that's when the generation was still called Y or Echo Boomer at the time. Now, we're considered Millennials (which is another term many people in this generation are starting to hate) beginning with 1980 and ending at 2000. If you look at the characteristics this generation contains, we all pretty have some of them in one way or another. 

If you guys even look at the articles for the Plurals (Z), they're saying that this generation is the one that's going to do much better Millennials (us) when they're clearly exaggerating. First, most of them are still elementary and won't be changing the world until they hit their 30s and 40s. Yes, the older members are making changes; however, it's still too early for that especially considering that Xers and us haven't even been in power yet.

Oh another thing, generations are not created just for marketing purposes, but for other factors as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/08/16 at 11:57 pm


Well it has been awhile, I hadn't been on here since August 2013 it looks like. 2 1/2 years absent.

Like I said in another thread, glad you have returned!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/09/16 at 12:29 am




Well the problem is that we're still not sure on when the generation begins and ends. If you guys look look up the old definition and articles, it stated the 1977-1994 demographic; however, that's when the generation was still called Y or Echo Boomer at the time. Now, we're considered Millennials (which is another term many people in this generation are starting to hate) beginning with 1980 and ending at 2000. If you look at the characteristics this generation contains, we all pretty have some of them in one way or another. 



Yeah, that 1977-1994 definition is a bit outdated. Nowadays I tend to see end dates that is usually around 2000 (give or take a few years around it). Heck I don't even see how 70s born are even considered to be Millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/09/16 at 4:41 pm


Like I said in another thread, glad you have returned!


same here. :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/09/16 at 5:53 pm


Yeah, that 1977-1994 definition is a bit outdated. Nowadays I tend to see end dates that is usually around 2000 (give or take a few years around it). Heck I don't even see how 70s born are even considered to be Millennials.
Yeah it sure is; however, that wasn't the only one. Even back then, the same generation had put the beginning at 1980/81 as well Here are some old articles with both demographics on why it was considered that way.

http://www.fdu.edu/newspubs/magazine/05ws/generations.htm

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm

http://adage.com/article/news/generation/55731/

http://readwrite.com/2004/06/24/knowledge_manag_1

http://www.valueoptions.com/spotlight_YIW/gen_y.htm

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/14/news/cl-36953

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/1999/09/the_american_teenager.single.html

http://www.lifecourse.com/media/articles/lib/2003/030003-axess.html

http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm

http://www.cdnbizwomen.com/articles/friedmann28.html

https://poptop.hypermart.net/generation.html

http://archive.knoxmpc.org/locldata/poproj.pdf

http://www.scouting.org/Home/Marketing/Resources/MarketingResearch/UniqueExperiences.aspx

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/10/16 at 3:51 pm


Yeah it sure is; however, that wasn't the only one. Even back then, the same generation had put the beginning at 1980/81 as well Here are some old articles with both demographics on why it was considered that way.

http://www.fdu.edu/newspubs/magazine/05ws/generations.htm

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm

http://adage.com/article/news/generation/55731/

http://readwrite.com/2004/06/24/knowledge_manag_1

http://www.valueoptions.com/spotlight_YIW/gen_y.htm

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/14/news/cl-36953

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/1999/09/the_american_teenager.single.html

http://www.lifecourse.com/media/articles/lib/2003/030003-axess.html

http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm

http://www.cdnbizwomen.com/articles/friedmann28.html

https://poptop.hypermart.net/generation.html

http://archive.knoxmpc.org/locldata/poproj.pdf

http://www.scouting.org/Home/Marketing/Resources/MarketingResearch/UniqueExperiences.aspx


Man! The articles are old. It's easy to see how some are outdated. For example that one from 1999 is VERY outdated. A lot of the things that would define Gen Z didn't even exist by 1999 (although I could be wrong as this as I'm not the most knowledgeable on generations). So I'm confused as to how the writer thought up of the end date for Gen Y by that point. That article from 2003 calls the millennials "Generation 2000" which is something I don't think I've ever heard any where else. Nowadays in 2015-2016 I tend to see 1982 - 2000.  Although it is possible to have recent articles that use outdated definitions. I don't think there will ever be an accurate and/or fully agreed year span.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/10/16 at 7:10 pm


Man! The articles are old. It's easy to see how some are outdated. For example that one from 1999 is VERY outdated. A lot of the things that would define Gen Z didn't even exist by 1999 (although I could be wrong as this as I'm not the most knowledgeable on generations). So I'm confused as to how the writer thought up of the end date for Gen Y by that point. That article from 2003 calls the millennials "Generation 2000" which is something I don't think I've ever heard any where else. Nowadays in 2015-2016 I tend to see 1982 - 2000.  Although it is possible to have recent articles that use outdated definitions. I don't think there will ever be an accurate and/or fully agreed year span.
See? I say that's the problem. The articles have been using the outdated demographic for a long time now. It's why some people have gotten confused on which generation they apart of. Even the 1995-09 generation Z demographic is obsolete. That one goes back to 2004!!

http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm

It states it at the bottom of the page.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 02/10/16 at 7:14 pm


See? I say that's the problem. The articles have been using the outdated demographic for a long time now. It's why some people have gotten confused on which generation they apart of. Even the 1995-09 generation Z demographic is obsolete. That one goes back to 2004!!

http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm

It states it at the bottom of the page.


WOW! THEIR OWN GEN X DEMOGRAPHIC IS ONLY 10 YEARS (1966-1976)! WHILE THEY START GEN Y AT 1977? WHAT??? GEN X SHOULD BE 1961-1980 AND GEN Y SHOULD BE 1981-2000.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/10/16 at 7:32 pm


WOW! THEIR OWN GEN X DEMOGRAPHIC IS ONLY 10 YEARS (1966-1976)! WHILE THEY START GEN Y AT 1977? WHAT??? GEN X SHOULD BE 1961-1980 AND GEN Y SHOULD BE 1981-2000.
That's because it's from 2004 when the demographics were by their old definition of characteristics, events and misc.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/10/16 at 7:43 pm


See? I say that's the problem. The articles have been using the outdated demographic for a long time now. It's why some people have gotten confused on which generation they apart of. Even the 1995-09 generation Z demographic is obsolete. That one goes back to 2004!!

http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm

It states it at the bottom of the page.


Yeah. That article can be seen as outdated. The things that I tend to see in articles in 2016 are different than what I see in that 2004 article. Heck the writer didn't even explain as to why she/he gave those year spans for each gen. And why is Gen X only 10 years? Yep, the article is outdated alright. For Gen Y it says 1977-1994 which I'm sure most people on this forum don't agree with as almost everyone here starts Gen Y in the 80s. And I don't think I've seen a lot of articles nowadays that split the Baby Boomers into 2 separate groups (Baby Boomers and Jones).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/10/16 at 7:46 pm


Yeah. That article can be seen as outdated. The things that I tend to see in articles in 2016 are different than what I see in that 2004 article. Heck the writer didn't even explain as to why she/he gave those year spans for each gen. And why is Gen X only 10 years? Yep, the article is outdated alright. For Gen Y it says 1977-1994 which I'm sure most people on this forum don't agree with as almost everyone here starts Gen Z in the 80s. And I don't think I've seen a lot of articles nowadays that split the Baby Boomers into 2 separate groups (Baby Boomers and Jones).


A lot of people started Y in the early '80s years ago too, it's not a new thing at all. This guy even ends it as late as freaking 2003! which is later than people are ending it right now.

http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe00s/smf/1100809756.shtml

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/10/16 at 7:57 pm


A lot of people started Y in the early '80s years ago too, it's not a new thing at all. This guy even ends it as late as freaking 2003! which is later than people are ending it right now.

http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe00s/smf/1100809756.shtml


I'm aware that people start Gen Y in the early '80s, but that one makes more sense to me than starting Gen Y in the '70s. Also who ends Gen Y in 2003?? Ehhh..... I don't see that a lot.  ??? To me I start Gen Y in the '80s and the furthest I'd ever end it is the late 1990s or 2000. But I'm not the most knowledgeable on generations. So I try to avoid giving a year span on generations. And I also think it would be better to wait after a certain amount of time ends before giving a year span. By this I mean to not make a generation span that extends far into the future as you don't know what events would even happen by that point.  For example that person says Gen Z is 2004-2025. We don't know what the 2020s will be like or even the late 2010s for that matter. And then when 2025 comes that person would find him/herself having to change/update the year spans due to being off in his/her own predictions for the year spans.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/10/16 at 8:00 pm


I'm aware that people start Gen Y in the early '80s, but that one makes more sense to me than starting Gen Y in the '70s. Also who ends Gen Y in 2003?? Ehhh..... I don't see that a lot.  ??? To me I start Gen Y in the '80s and the furthest I'd ever end it is the late 1990s or 2000.


Yeah that's late, just saying that someone way back in 2004 thought it ended that late oddly.

http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe00s/smf/1115582588.shtml

I (I was bbigd04 back then) posted "around 2000" back in 2005.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/10/16 at 8:09 pm


Yeah that's late, just saying that someone way back in 2004 thought it ended that late oddly.

http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe00s/smf/1115582588.shtml

I (I was bbigd04 back then) posted "around 2000" back in 2005.


"around 2000" seems more accurate as it goes with the whole idea behind Gen Y/millennials. A lot of people in that old thread are just throwing around year dates with some reasons that I'd consider to be a bit arbitrary. I mean one poster says it starts in 1993-1994 without even giving a reasons as to why.  And one even says 1991 ??? As I scroll down the old thread and see the later posts I've started noticing people with different dates that are more up to date while the earlier posts in the thread can easily be seen as outdated (or just wrong).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/10/16 at 8:50 pm

Though the Baby Boomer generation is pretty set, some still debate the years of that even. I've read debates from people born in the early '60s saying they don't identify with that generation and that the boomers actually added the early '60s on just to make themselves seem younger ROFL.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/10/16 at 9:40 pm


Though the Baby Boomer generation is pretty set, some still debate the years of that even. I've read debates from people born in the early '60s saying they don't identify with that generation and that the boomers actually added the early '60s on just to make themselves seem younger ROFL.  ;D


HA! That's pretty funny. Never heard anything like that before.  ;D I gotta ask my old family members if they ever feel like they're Baby Boomers as they were born in 1960 and 1961.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/12/16 at 9:58 pm

Now, I'm not saying 1995-1997 is "purely" Gen Z (VHS tapes, dial-up, etc. was still around until 2006), but it seems that for the VAST majority researchers, marketers, and demographers, '95 is the start date they've got locked in. Even MSNBC uses 1995-2012.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gen-z-bernie-sanders-answers-the-how-policy-making

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/12/16 at 10:15 pm


Now, I'm not saying 1995-1997 is "purely" Gen Z (VHS tapes, dial-up, etc. was still around until 2006), but it seems that for the VAST majority researchers, marketers, and demographers, '95 is the start date they've got locked in. Even MSNBC uses 1995-2012.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gen-z-bernie-sanders-answers-the-how-policy-making


I've read that article too. The early years are probably on the cusp for sure, but Gen Z is definitely STARTING to emerge as a new generation, it's just early but you're going to start hearing a lot more about them very soon I have a feeling.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/12/16 at 10:47 pm


Now, I'm not saying 1995-1997 is "purely" Gen Z (VHS tapes, dial-up, etc. was still around until 2006), but it seems that for the VAST majority researchers, marketers, and demographers, '95 is the start date they've got locked in. Even MSNBC uses 1995-2012.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gen-z-bernie-sanders-answers-the-how-policy-making


Sad but true. It would make sense that this upcoming election is the first true Z one too. Since 1994 is the cutoff for Y and at the same damn time the last ones to vote in the 2012 election when Obama was reelected. It makes perfect sense that the 2000 election for George Bush was early Y, the 2004 election for George Bush and the 2008 election for Barack Obama was core Y, and the 2012 election for Obama was late Y. The 1996 election would have been late X. The 1992 and 1988 elections would have been core X, while the 1984 election would have been early X. It makes perfect sense that the pattern is continuing and there's no way around it. There's nothing we can do to stop the demographics from starting Gen Z at 1995. 75% of the articles and demographics start Z at 1995 while 25% start at 2000 or 2001 including ourselves giving opinions on these websites.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/12/16 at 10:52 pm

Another thing I must address. Notice how generations always start with the 0/1 digit number, or the 5/6 digit number. You don't ever see generations start at the 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, or 9. For example. Baby Boomers starts at 1945 or 1946. Generation X starts at 1965 or 1966. Generation Y starts at 1980 or 1981, Generation Z starts at 1995 or 1996, and this upcoming Generation Alpha starts at about 2010 or 2011 but we'll have to see in due time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/12/16 at 10:53 pm


Sad but true. It would make sense that this upcoming election is the first true Z one too. Since 1994 is the cutoff for Y and at the same damn time the last ones to vote in the 2012 election when Obama was reelected. It makes perfect sense that the 2000 election for George Bush was early Y, the 2004 election for George Bush and the 2008 election for Barack Obama was core Y, and the 2012 election for Obama was late Y. The 1996 election would have been late X. The 1992 and 1988 elections would have been core X, while the 1984 election would have been early X. It makes perfect sense that the pattern is continuing and there's no way around it. There's nothing we can do to stop the demographics from starting Gen Z at 1995. 75% of the articles and demographics start Z at 1995 while 25% start at 2000 or 2001 including ourselves giving opinions on these websites.


But you still have to take in account that just as many demographics and articles will say that Millennials were born till 2000 or use age 18/19-34 as an age range for Gen Y. So once again, take what these guys say with a grain of salt. It's how YOU grew up and what YOU experienced, and not some random middle aged man who probably just only likes talking about generations so he could sell sh!t and profit off of the deprived youth...

Generations exist, but they aren't as cut and dry as people make it out to be



Another thing I must address. Notice how generations always start with the 0/1 digit number, or the 5/6 digit number. You don't ever see generations start at the 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, or 9. For example. Baby Boomers starts at 1945 or 1946. Generation X starts at 1965 or 1966. Generation Y starts at 1980 or 1981, Generation Z starts at 1995 or 1996, and this upcoming Generation Alpha starts at about 2010 or 2011 but we'll have to see in due time.


But if that's the case then there's no point of having generations. Besides how could Boomers start at 1945/6, X at 1965/6, & Y NOT to begin at 1985/6? That's the point, Generations on average are about 15-18 years.

Baby Boomers are circa 1946-1964, 18 years.

X is typically 1965-1980, 15 years.

Y could range from being 15 years as an 1980-1995 or 1981-1996, or 18 years with 1981-1999 or the most common being 1982-2000.

So pick your poison

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/12/16 at 10:55 pm


Sad but true. It would make sense that this upcoming election is the first true Z one too. Since 1994 is the cutoff for Y and at the same damn time the last ones to vote in the 2012 election when Obama was reelected. It makes perfect sense that the 2000 election for George Bush was early Y, the 2004 election for George Bush and the 2008 election for Barack Obama was core Y, and the 2012 election for Obama was late Y. The 1996 election would have been late X. The 1992 and 1988 elections would have been core X, while the 1984 election would have been early X. It makes perfect sense that the pattern is continuing and there's no way around it. There's nothing we can do to stop the demographics from starting Gen Z at 1995. 75% of the articles and demographics start Z at 1995 while 25% start at 2000 or 2001 including ourselves giving opinions on these websites.


I don't think you guys (mid to late '90s crowd) are TOTALLY the next generation, but I do think you're setting the early foundation for them. When the '00s borns start coming of age (not long) Gen Z is definitely going to start to be in full bloom.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/12/16 at 11:00 pm


I don't think you guys (mid to late '90s crowd) are TOTALLY the next generation, but I do think you're setting the early foundation for them. When the '00s borns start coming of age (not long) Gen Z is definitely going to start to be in full bloom.


We're cuspers, and nothing more...

Pure Z begins with 00's births, Pure Y ends around the early 90's.

Those from 1995-2000 are on the Cusp of Y & Z, with 1995-1997 leaning Y, and 1998-2000 leaning Z

But it ultimately depends on person to person

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/12/16 at 11:08 pm


Sad but true. It would make sense that this upcoming election is the first true Z one too. Since 1994 is the cutoff for Y and at the same damn time the last ones to vote in the 2012 election when Obama was reelected. It makes perfect sense that the 2000 election for George Bush was early Y, the 2004 election for George Bush and the 2008 election for Barack Obama was core Y, and the 2012 election for Obama was late Y. The 1996 election would have been late X. The 1992 and 1988 elections would have been core X, while the 1984 election would have been early X. It makes perfect sense that the pattern is continuing and there's no way around it. There's nothing we can do to stop the demographics from starting Gen Z at 1995. 75% of the articles and demographics start Z at 1995 while 25% start at 2000 or 2001 including ourselves giving opinions on these websites.


It's not really all that "sad". You guys get described as "realist" and "practical". You already know what Millennials get described as  8-P

In a Canadian context I think mid-90s borns are Millennials, since they got to vote in the 2015 election, which everyone considers a Millennial election. The 18-34 demographic there was 1981-1997, it sort of maps on perfectly.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/12/16 at 11:10 pm

From Wikipedia (Not 100% Accurate, but they have some of the most common sources and definitions)

"Millennials
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Generation Y" redirects here. For other uses, see Generation Y (disambiguation) and Millennials (disambiguation).
Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends; most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.

Contents 
1 Terminology
2 Traits
3 Political views
4 Demographics in the United States
5 Economic prospects
5.1 Peter Pan generation
6 Religion
7 Digital technology
8 Cultural identity
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
Terminology
Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote about the Millennials in Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069, and they released an entire book devoted to them, titled Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. Strauss and Howe are "widely credited with naming the Millennials" according to journalist Bruce Horovitz. In 1987, they coined the term "around the time '82-born children were entering preschool and the media were first identifying their prospective link to the millennial year 2000". Strauss and Howe use 1981 as the Millennials' starting birth year and 2004 as the last birth year.

In August 1993, the phrase Generation Y first appeared in an Ad Age editorial to describe those who were aged 11 or younger as well as the teenagers of the upcoming ten years who were defined as different from Generation X. Since then, the company has sometimes used 1981 as the starting birth year. According to Horovitz, in 2012, Ad Age "threw in the towel by conceding that Millennials is a better name than Gen Y", and by 2014, a past director of data strategy at Ad Age said to NPR "the Generation Y label was a placeholder until we found out more about them".

Alternative names for this group proposed in the past are: Generation We, Global Generation, Generation Next and the Net Generation. Millennials are sometimes also called Echo Boomers, referring to the generation's size relative to the Baby Boomer generation and due to the significant increase in birth rates during the 1980s and into the 1990s. In the United States, birth rates peaked in August 1990 and a 20th-century trend toward smaller families in developed countries continued.

Newsweek used the term Generation 9/11 to refer to young people who were between the ages of 10 and 20 years on 11 September 2001. The first reference to "Generation 9/11" was made in the cover story of the 12 November 2001 issue of Newsweek.

In his book The Lucky Few: Between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom, author Elwood Carlson called Millennials the "New Boomers" (born 1983 to 2001), because of the upswing in births after 1983, finishing with the "political and social challenges" that occurred after the terrorist acts of 11 September 2001, and the "persistent economic difficulties" of the time. Generally speaking, Millennials are the children of Baby Boomers or Generation Xers, while a few may have parents from the Silent Generation.

In 2006, Australian McCrindle Research Center, used 1981 to 2000 as birth dates in a document titled "Report on the Attitudes and Views of Generations X and Y on Superannuation". Separately, McCrindle has also defined "Generation Y" as those born between 1980 to 1994.

In 2013, a global generational study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers with the University of Southern California and the London Business School defined Millennials as those born between 1980 and 1995.

In May 2013, a Time magazine cover story identified Millennials as those born from 1980 or 1981 to 2000.

In 2014, the Pew Research Center, an American think tank organization, defined "adult Millennials" as those who were 18 to 33 years old, born 1981–1996. And according to them, the youngest Millennials are still "in their teens" with "no chronological end point set for them yet".

Also, in 2014, a comparative study from Dale Carnegie Training and MSW Research was released which studies Millennials compared to other generations in the workplace. This study described "Millennial" birth years between 1980–1996.

In 2015, the Pew Research Center also conducted research regarding generational identity. It was discovered that Millennials, or members of Generation Y, are less likely to strongly identify with the generational term when compared to Generation X or to the baby boomers. It was also found that Millennials chose most often to define itself with more negative terms such as self-absorbed, wasteful or greedy. In this 2015 report, Pew defined Millennials with birth years ranging from 1981 onwards.

Chinese Millennials (more commonly called the 1980s and 1990s generations there) were examined and contrasted with American millennials at a 2015 #MillennialMinds conference in Shanghai organized by USC U.S.-China Institute (site has video of presentations). Findings included their marriage, childbearing, and child raising preferences, their life and career ambitions, and their attitudes towards volunteerism and activism.

In Canada, the official body of Statistics Canada has declared 1992 as the last year of birth for Generation Y."







"Generation Z
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Globe icon.
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2016)
Generation Z (also iGen, Post-Millennials, or Plurals) are the cohort of people born after the Millennials. The generation is generally defined with birth years ranging from the mid or late 1990s through the 2010s or from the early 2000s to around 2025.

A significant aspect of this generation is its widespread usage of the internet from a young age. Members of Generation Z are typically thought of as being comfortable with technology, and interacting on social media websites accounts for a significant portion of their socializing. Some commentators have suggested that growing up through the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Great Recession has given the cohort a feeling of unsettlement and insecurity.

Contents 
1 Terminology
2 Demographics in the United States
3 Characteristics
3.1 Technology and social media
4 Education
5 Employment prospects
6 Successors
7 References
8 Further reading
Terminology
Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote several books on the subject of generations and are widely credited with coining the term Millennials. Howe has said "No one knows who will name the next generation after the Millennials". In 2005, their company sponsored an online contest in which respondents voted overwhelmingly for the name Homeland Generation. That was not long after the September 11th terrorist attacks, and one fallout of the disaster was that Americans may have felt more safe staying at home. Howe has described himself as "not totally wed" to the name and cautioned that "names are being invented by people who have a great press release. Everyone is looking for a hook." Howe defines the Homeland Generation as people born from approximately 2005 to 2025.

iGeneration (or iGen) is a name that several individuals claim to have coined, though it "sounds like an adapter used to charge your phone on the bus". Psychology professor and author Jean Twenge claims that the name iGen "just popped into her head" while she was driving near Silicon Valley, and that she had intended to use it as the title of her 2006 book Generation Me until it was overridden by her publisher. Demographer Cheryl Russell claims to have first used the term in 2009.

In 2012, USA Today sponsored an online contest for readers to choose the name of the next generation after the Millennials. The name Generation Z was suggested, although journalist Bruce Horovitz thought that some might find the term "off-putting". Some other names that were proposed included: iGeneration, Gen Tech, Gen Wii, Net Gen, Digital Natives, and Plurals. According to Horovitz, the generation begins roughly around 1995. He also referenced the Strauss and Howe birth dates that begin in 2005.

In 2013, the Nickelodeon channel used the term post-millennials to describe its audience of "children born after 2005".

Frank N. Magid Associates, another advertising and marketing agency, nicknamed this cohort "The Pluralist Generation" or 'Plurals'. These births are said to have started from 1997 into the present day. Turner Broadcasting System also advocated calling the post-millennial generation 'Plurals' instead of Generation Z.

Matt Carmichael, a past director of data strategy at Ad Age, said in 2012 "we think iGen is the name that best fits and will best lead to understanding of this generation". In 2014, an NPR news intern noted that iGeneration "seems to be winning" as the name for the post-Millennials. It has been described as "a wink and nod to Apple's iPod and iPhone", while former Ad Age writer Matt Carmichael notes that the lowercase "i" in iGeneration "leaves room for interpretation" and "could be any number of things: It could be for interactive, it could be for international, it could be for something we haven't thought of yet." In response to naming a generation after a branded product, Randy Apuzzo, technologist and CEO of Zesty.io, published an article titled "Always Connected: Generation Z, the Digitarians", in which he calls the new generation 'Digitarians' because they are the first generation that has been "always connected to the internet" and were raised with touch devices. Statistics Canada has noted that the cohort is sometimes referred to as "the Internet generation," as it is the first generation to have been born after the invention of the Internet.

In Australia, a 2005 report from the McCrindle Research Center used 2001 as the starting point of this generation's birth years. A later McCrindle report in 2009 gave a range of 1995–2009, starting with a recorded rise in birth rates, and fitting their newer definition of a generational span as 15 years. Under this definition McCrindle uses birth rates to determine when a new generation emerges rather than or in addition to sociological changes and trends. Statistics Canada defines the generation as starting in 1993. Speaking at a TEDx event in 2015, Mark McCrindle suggested that Generation Z ended in 2010, terming those born after as "Generation Alpha".NOBODY has any idea where and when Generations Y & Z begin and end. It's perfectly fine to have opinions, but please be mindful that there's no hard cutoff.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/12/16 at 11:13 pm

Another thing is don't take this generation stuff too seriously, it'll probably drive you crazy. They exist and all but it's not really that big of a deal.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/12/16 at 11:24 pm


It's not really all that "sad". You guys get described as "realist" and "practical". You already know what Millennials get described as 8-P


and Plurals or Z stereotypes are 100 times worse than millennials or Y.  :-[

I wish a lot of people would except Z more and let us share our own experiences instead of older generations giving ours, and besides, half of the stuff early Z grew up into the second half of Y did so as well. People just don't want to admit that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/12/16 at 11:30 pm


and Plurals or Z stereotypes are 100 times worse than millennials or Y.  :-[

I wish a lot of people would except Z more and let us share our own experiences instead of older generations giving ours, and besides, half of the stuff early Z grew up into the second half of Y did so as well. People just don't want to admit that.


LOL the Baby Boomers are still constantly hated on (and have been for YEARS) and they're in their 50s and 60s. You think my parents care about the negative stereotypes Baby Boomers have? No. You won't get anywhere if you worry about stuff like that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/12/16 at 11:34 pm

I'm curious: how do more liberal Boomers feel about being frequently labelled as the "worst generation of all-time" (mostly based on the corrupt politicians who voted for their children to go to the Iraq War, as well as those who "destroyed the economy")? Most of the hatred Millennials (who are clearly mostly liberal) have for Boomers seems to be directed at conservative Boomers ("They're racist, they're sexist, they're evil, they're behind the times, they'll die fading into irrelevancy, etc.").

I'm not saying having conservative viewpoints is bad, but it seems like much of the Internet thinks "anything conservative = bad and wrong" (though there are also tons of people on the Internet who bash liberals).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/12/16 at 11:38 pm

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=baby+boomer

Read these urban dictionary definitions about the Boomers it's hilarious and full of hate.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/12/16 at 11:40 pm

Now, I'm not saying all of my generation are all self-centered or anything, but I hate how some of my peers go "Millennials are not narcissists!" - then follow that up with "We're the tech-savviest, most educated, best generation ever! We're gonna save the world from the evil Republicans, we're so awesome and cool and amazing yeah yeah!"

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/12/16 at 11:45 pm

Boomers and Millennials are two sides of the same coin.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/12/16 at 11:46 pm

I agree. One is left-wing and young - the other is right-wing and elderly.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/12/16 at 11:49 pm


I'm curious: how do more liberal Boomers feel about being frequently labelled as the "worst generation of all-time" (mostly based on the corrupt politicians who voted for their children to go to the Iraq War, as well as those who "destroyed the economy")? Most of the hatred Millennials (who are clearly mostly liberal) have for Boomers seems to be directed at conservative Boomers ("They're racist, they're sexist, they're evil, they're behind the times, they'll die fading into irrelevancy, etc.").

I'm not saying having conservative viewpoints is bad, but it seems like much of the Internet thinks "anything conservative = bad and wrong" (though there are also tons of people on the Internet who bash liberals).


I think they mostly avoid the Internet and our inane discussions  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/12/16 at 11:50 pm

They're also both full of themselves, self-entitled and lazy.

Millennials = Think they're better because they're so educated, tech-savvy, liberal, stylish and accepting.

Boomers = Think they're better because they're so educated, traditional, and uphold "proper values".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/12/16 at 11:56 pm


They're also both full of themselves, self-entitled and lazy.

Millennials = Think they're better because they're so educated, tech-savvy, liberal, stylish and accepting.

Boomers = Think they're better because they're so educated, traditional, and uphold "proper values".


But... I am better!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/12/16 at 11:58 pm


But... I am better!


Early Millennials are better than Core-Late Millennials but Core-Late Millennials might as well be younger boomers. :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/12/16 at 11:59 pm

Even though I'm a core Millennial, I'll have to agree. I don't see guys in their early-mid 30s bragging about how they're SO much better than older people or pushing "SJW" crap nearly as much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 12:05 am


Even though I'm a core Millennial, I'll have to agree. I don't see guys in their early-mid 30s bragging about how they're SO much better than older people or pushing "SJW" crap nearly as much.


I have. The older people thing, no but I'm sure you're the dude I told the story way back about the hipster dude yelling at me in public. :-\\

I don't see it as much with my age group, though. It does happen but it's mostly younger millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 12:18 am


Early Millennials are better than Core-Late Millennials but Core-Late Millennials might as well be younger boomers. :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P


No way! Late Millennials have a lot of similarities to the Greatest Generation, like our classy fashion sense, and the ability to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with us  >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 12:20 am


No way! Late Millennials have a lot of similarities to the Greatest Generation, like our classy fashion sense, and the ability to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with us  >:(


Early Millennials are similar to Generation X (the real greatest generation!).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 12:31 am


Early Millennials are similar to Generation X (the real greatest generation!).


What did Gen X do??

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 12:34 am


What did Gen X do??


Released Dookie and Smash.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/13/16 at 12:37 am


Even though I'm a core Millennial, I'll have to agree. I don't see guys in their early-mid 30s bragging about how they're SO much better than older people or pushing "SJW" crap nearly as much.


I'm borderline early/core millennial and I never heard of the term "SJW" before seeing it on this forum (now that I know what it means I can't stand it), don't care about "hipsters" either LOL.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/13/16 at 12:38 am

Slightly off-topic, but anyone notice how Gen X-ers seem to be quite similar to Boomers in musical taste? Even though they were just kids, babies, or not even born yet when 70s "classic rock" was big, it seems to be ingrained into them just as much as it is for Boomers.

For example: my dad listens to The Who quite often in the car, even though he was just a kid when "Won't Get Fooled Again" hit the charts.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 12:40 am


Released Dookie and Smash.


They also released American Idiot and Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace  :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/13/16 at 12:43 am

Isn't Gen X supposed to be a bunch of stoner slackers that wear grungy clothes? Is that really a positive stereotype either?  ???  Every generation has a bunch of negative stereotypes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 12:44 am


Isn't Gen X supposed to be a bunch of stoner slackers that wear grungy clothes? Is that really a positive stereotype either?  ???  Every generation has a bunch of negative stereotypes.


Don't forget the record crime and teenage pregnancy rates ;D

Us super duper awesome late millennials though...  8) lowest crime rate since the early 60s!  :D Everyone wants to be a late millennial.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 12:46 am


They also released American Idiot and Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace  :D


Yeah... How about we forget those albums exist? Besides, those albums are for your era anyway. ;D :P

By the way, you listen to any older Offspring? Thoughts?


Isn't Gen X supposed to be a bunch of stoner slackers that wear grungy clothes? Is that really a positive stereotype either?  ???  Every generation has a bunch of negative stereotypes.


Hahaha, if there is one thing I do not like from the 90's, it's Grunge. 8-P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/13/16 at 1:37 am


Yeah... How about we forget those albums exist? Besides, those albums are for your era anyway. ;D :P


Is Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace really that detached from The Offspring's older style?  I think it's easily one of their weakest albums aside from a few tracks, but it at least abstains from the faux-emo aesthetic that was still going strong at the time; well, maybe "Kristy, Are You Doing Okay?" is sort of in that category, but not "Hammerhead," "You're Gonna Go Far Kid," or especially "Trust in You," which to me sounds like it was written during the Smash era.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 2:26 am


Is Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace really that detached from The Offspring's older style?  I think it's easily one of their weakest albums aside from a few tracks, but it at least abstains from the faux-emo aesthetic that was still going strong at the time; well, maybe "Kristy, Are You Doing Okay?" is sort of in that category, but not "Hammerhead," "You're Gonna Go Far Kid," or especially "Trust in You," which to me sounds like it was written during the Smash era.


You're Gonna Go Far Kid? 8-P 8-P 8-P Total Faux-Emo!

I did say in another thread that I thought Hammerhead and Trust in You are some of the only songs on the album that I tolerate (along with Stuff is Messed Up or Sh!t is F*cked Up, as it should be called). Not even though songs are as good as the mighty Smash, though. :(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/13/16 at 8:05 am


LOL the Baby Boomers are still constantly hated on (and have been for YEARS) and they're in their 50s and 60s. You think my parents care about the negative stereotypes Baby Boomers have? No. You won't get anywhere if you worry about stuff like that.


There's a huge difference between being the core part of the generation and actually being at the tail end of one and the beginning of the other. That's the position I'm in including a few others on here. I'm late Y/early Z. So I'm stuck in a weird position which makes things a lot crazier IMO. If I was born a few years earlier or a few years later later I could relax  ;D

This is basically how I feel being on the cusp of Y & Z

https://www.teachengineering.org/collection/cub_/activities/cub_airplanes/cub_airplanes_lesson03_activity2_header_image.gif

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Richbrings2life on 02/13/16 at 8:21 am

http://www.adweek.com/news/television/turner-says-post-millennial-generation-should-be-known-plurals-168994

Can we just face the fact that millennials are those born between 1981-1997 and generation z (kids and teenagers of today) are 1998-2015.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/13/16 at 8:23 am


http://www.adweek.com/news/television/turner-says-post-millennial-generation-should-be-known-plurals-168994

Can we just face the fact that millennials are those born between 1981-1997 and generation z (kids and teenagers of today) are 1998-2015.


Ted Turner?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Richbrings2life on 02/13/16 at 9:21 am

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner

Owner of the turner company, tv, movies and entertainment distribution that provides every best resource for most of the tv channels across the globe: http://www.turner.com/

http://www.turner.com/locations

And entertainment is one of the most important entities next to politics. So it I clear that the millennials are officially not main generation to cater, but rather generation z (plurals) BORN 1998-2015.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 3:35 pm


Yeah... How about we forget those albums exist? Besides, those albums are for your era anyway. ;D :P

By the way, you listen to any older Offspring? Thoughts?

Hahaha, if there is one thing I do not like from the 90's, it's Grunge. 8-P


Hmm, I was in the library when you posted that, so I didn't get to listen to it. Where did you post it again?  ;D


Is Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace really that detached from The Offspring's older style?  I think it's easily one of their weakest albums aside from a few tracks, but it at least abstains from the faux-emo aesthetic that was still going strong at the time; well, maybe "Kristy, Are You Doing Okay?" is sort of in that category, but not "Hammerhead," "You're Gonna Go Far Kid," or especially "Trust in You," which to me sounds like it was written during the Smash era.


I loved that album! Especially You're Gonna Go Far Kid and Let's Hear it for Rock Bottom. But I also liked 21 Guns (especially 21 Guns and The Last of The American Girls from that album) so maybe I shouldn't talk  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 10:42 pm


Hmm, I was in the library when you posted that, so I didn't get to listen to it. Where did you post it again?  ;D


http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=52787.msg3349484#msg3349484 Here you go! Listen n learn, son!


I loved that album! Especially You're Gonna Go Far Kid and Let's Hear it for Rock Bottom. But I also liked 21 Guns (especially 21 Guns and The Last of The American Girls from that album) so maybe I shouldn't talk  ;D


8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/13/16 at 11:01 pm


There's a huge difference between being the core part of the generation and actually being at the tail end of one and the beginning of the other. That's the position I'm in including a few others on here. I'm late Y/early Z. So I'm stuck in a weird position which makes things a lot crazier IMO. If I was born a few years earlier or a few years later later I could relax ;D

This is basically how I feel being on the cusp of Y & Z

https://www.teachengineering.org/collection/cub_/activities/cub_airplanes/cub_airplanes_lesson03_activity2_header_image.gif


lol, what year would it be? ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/13/16 at 11:09 pm


lol, what year would it be? ???


What ever opinion you want it to be. I'll go ahead and cut this conversation. It's best not to worry about it and by heart I'll always feel like a Y/Z cusper. Y are my leaders, while Z are the people I give advice too! It's pretty fun for me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/13/16 at 11:20 pm


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner

Owner of the turner company, tv, movies and entertainment distribution that provides every best resource for most of the tv channels across the globe: http://www.turner.com/

http://www.turner.com/locations

And entertainment is one of the most important entities next to politics. So it I clear that the millennials are officially not main generation to cater, but rather generation z (plurals) BORN 1998-2015.


Oh wow. Very cool to have Ted Turner give his views. When you have someone who takes part in providing entertainment/tv/movies (things that are made to target specific generations) then it can be hard to argue with their views.  ;D And the fact that the names "Plurals" is used along with the fact that it's in 2016 also lets me know the article is more up to date.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 11:23 pm


http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=52787.msg3349484#msg3349484 Here you go! Listen n learn, son!

8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P


Nothingtown is also really good.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 11:25 pm


What ever opinion you want it to be. I'll go ahead and cut this conversation. It's best not to worry about it and by heart I'll always feel like a Y/Z cusper. Y are my leaders, while Z are the people I give advice too! It's pretty fun for me.


That's pretty awesome! I also want to be an advice giver, but I don't want to sound like a mom/dad to people who're only 5 years younger than me  ;D

I'm not taking any advice from 2000s teens though 8-P ;D Did you listen to the radio in the mid-2000s?!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 11:51 pm


Nothingtown is also really good.


That song isn't awful. Best song on the album is either Trust in You (but this sounds like a cheap Smash knock-off from China) or Sh!t is F*cked Up for sure.


I'm not taking any advice from 2000s teens though 8-P ;D Did you listen to the radio in the mid-2000s?!


This reminds me. Generation X may have made American Idiot and Rise and Fall but it was you core Millennials who consumed it!! :P :P :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 12:04 am


That song isn't awful. Best song on the album is either Trust in You (but this sounds like a cheap Smash knock-off from China) or Sh!t is F*cked Up for sure.

This reminds me. Generation X may have made American Idiot and Rise and Fall but it was you core Millennials who consumed it!! :P :P :P


Hey, I'm not core millennial! You calin' me old?  :P I'm practically not even millennial.

Rise and Fall was decent, quit hating  ;D I agree American Idiot aged pretty badly though. That teen-angst is embarrassing  :-[

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/14/16 at 12:06 am

Good ol' Teen angst. The thing that can only sound good in the era it was created in. Any other era it'll sound stupid.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 12:12 am


Hey, I'm not core millennial! You calin' me old?  :P I'm practically not even millennial.

Rise and Fall was decent, quit hating  ;D I agree American Idiot aged pretty badly though. That teen-angst is embarrassing  :-
Good ol' Teen angst. The thing that can only sound good in the era it was created in. Any other era it'll sound stupid.


Kind of like Nu Metal.

"I was so much an outcast
No one ever liked me cause I wasn't wanted
I was so different from the rest of them all
f*cked up on the drugs, from all the speed
And I never got no sleep
Cause I kept on trippin' over what they said
And everything that my mom said made me mad
And everything that my dad said made me sad"


Yes, those lyrics are real.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/14/16 at 12:15 am



Kind of like Nu Metal.

"I was so much an outcast
No one ever liked me cause I wasn't wanted
I was so different from the rest of them all
f*cked up on the drugs, from all the speed
And I never got no sleep
Cause I kept on trippin' over what they said
And everything that my mom said made me mad
And everything that my dad said made me sad"


Yes, those lyrics are real.


ಠ_ಠ... Oh-oh wow.

And everything that my mom said made me mad
And everything that my dad said made me sad


Sounds like your typical teenager.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 12:23 am


ಠ_ಠ... Oh-oh wow.

And everything that my mom said made me mad
And everything that my dad said made me sad


Sounds like your typical teenager.


There's more!

"Why are you trying to make fun of me?!
You think it's funny
What the f*ck you think it's doing to me?!
You take your turn lashing out at me
I want you crying when you're dirty in the front of me"


Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/14/16 at 12:34 am


There's more!

"Why are you trying to make fun of me?!
You think it's funny
What the f*ck you think it's doing to me?!
You take your turn lashing out at me
I want you crying when you're dirty in the front of me"



I can't believe those actually were considered "lyrics" at one point in time. ಠ_ಠ In 2016 the Y2K years sure those seem silly.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 12:43 am


I can't believe those actually were considered "lyrics" at one point in time. ಠ_ಠ In 2016 the Y2K years sure those seem silly.  ;D


I dunno what's sillier: Nu Males or Nu Metal! ;D

2002:
"Cause she is watchin' wrestling
Creamin' over tough guys
Listenin' to rap metal
Turntables in her eyes

It's like a bad movie
She is lookin' through me
If you were me, then you'd be
Screamin' "Someone shoot me!"
As I fail miserably,
Tryin' to get the girl all the bad guys want.
She's the girl all the bad guys want!"


2016:
"Cause she is watchin' foreign films
Creamin' over femme guys
Listenin' to indie pop
Ukuleles in her eyes

It's like bad Netflix
She is lookin' through me
If you were me, then you'd be
Screamin' "Someone shoot me!"
As I fail miserably,
Tryin' to get the girl all the hipster guys want.
She's the girl all the hipster guys want!"

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 12:46 am


Oh right! You missed out on that age bracket by one/years! You later agers still consumed it along with your Cork Trees and your Black Parades. :P

It's better than later-era Green Day and worlds better than Days Go By, I'll give it that but it had Kirsty Are You Doing Ok and that song is one of the worst things I've ever heard. "Everyone's so full of sh!t! Born and rasied by hypocrites!" Jesus, the only thing worse than the lyrics is the video. Only the Pop Punk of 2000-2002 as aged gracefully with all his bleached haired glory.

Kind of like Nu Metal.

"I was so much an outcast
No one ever liked me cause I wasn't wanted
I was so different from the rest of them all
f*cked up on the drugs, from all the speed
And I never got no sleep
Cause I kept on trippin' over what they said
And everything that my mom said made me mad
And everything that my dad said made me sad"


Yes, those lyrics are real.


I'm officially pioneer Z as of now ;D

Early 2000s pop punk has both aged badly and aged well. On one hand a lot of the lyrics are cringey, on the other hand I remember a lot of people hating on it in the actual early 2000s yet a lot of it has hit "old is gold" status.

And the lyrics to Simple Plan's I'm Just a Kid

I woke up it was 7, I waited till 11
Just to figure out that no one would call
I think I've got a lot of friends but I don't hear from them
What's another night all alone?
When you're spending everyday on your own
And here it goes

I'm just a kid and life is a nightmare
I'm just a kid, I know that it's not fair
Nobody cares, cause I'm alone and the world is having more than me
Tonight


I refuse to sing this in the year of our Lord 2016  ;D ;D :P :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 12:52 am


I'm officially pioneer Z as of now ;D

Early 2000s pop punk has both aged badly and aged well. On one hand a lot of the lyrics are cringey, on the other hand I remember a lot of people hating on it in the actual early 2000s yet a lot of it has hit "old is gold" status.

And the lyrics to Simple Plan's I'm Just a Kid

I woke up it was 7, I waited till 11
Just to figure out that no one would call
I think I've got a lot of friends but I don't hear from them
What's another night all alone?
When you're spending everyday on your own
And here it goes

I'm just a kid and life is a nightmare
I'm just a kid, I know that it's not fair
Nobody cares, cause I'm alone and the world is having more than me
Tonight


I refuse to sing this in the year of our Lord 2016  ;D ;D :P :P


Us early Millennials had the best of it all. Nu Metal, Pop Punk, bad Teen Pop, bad Urbany Post-Teen Pop, American Pie films, spiky hair etc., etc.

Early 2000's Pop Punk is the last great era! >:( Sum 41, blink-182, Home Grown, MxPx, Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, old Green Day, old Offspring! All the last real bands! Man, I miss Pop Punk from 1994-2003... :(

Early 00's had the best lyrics:
"Stop acting like you're sad, I hate to hear you cry
You're like an episode of "Days of our Lives'
If you don't get your way, you'll whine and complain
Superficialistic, please go away!

And I wasted all my time
Waiting up for you
To make up your mind

I am sick of stupid girls
I am sick of stupid girls
I am sick of stupid girls"


Better than these Edgar Allen Poe wannabe's of the Real 2000's:
"She says she's no good with words but I'm worse
Barely stuttered out a joke of a romantic stuck to my tongue
Weighed down with words too over-dramatic
Tonight it's "It can't get much worse"
Vs. "No one should ever feel like..."

I'm two quarters and a heart down
And I don't want to forget how your voice sounds
These words are all I have so I'll write them
So you need them just to get by

Dance, dance
We're falling apart to half time
Dance, dance
And these are the lives you love to lead
Dance, this is the way they'd love
If they knew how misery loved me"
8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 12:56 am

Is that Dance Dance by Fall Out Boy? I don't care what you say, that album has aged amazingly well :P That is hitting definitely on track for Old Is Gold status and you can't stop it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 1:00 am


Is that Dance Dance by Fall Out Boy? I don't care what you say, that album has aged amazingly well :P That is hitting definitely on track for Old Is Gold status and you can't stop it.


.....Yes, it is.....

I think the album's aged like milk! With clumps, too. >:( I will do the best I can to stop it from becoming "old is gold" along with the rest of 'em! American Idiot already hit "old is gold" in 2010 or 2011 for some reason even though it's the absolute worst Pop Punk album of our time. Enough is enough!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 1:07 am


.....Yes, it is.....

I think the album's aged like milk! With clumps, too. >:( I will do the best I can to stop it from becoming "old is gold" along with the rest of 'em! American Idiot already hit "old is gold" in 2010 or 2011 for some reason even though it's the absolute worst Pop Punk album of our time. Enough is enough!


In Canada/Quebec we make poutine and other delicious food out of cheese curds (which comes from sour milk 'clumps') so that's a good thing :P

Did American Idiot hit old is gold status? I still like Jesus of Suburbia, but the American Idiot song makes no sense! What is "everybody do the propoganda!" supposed to mean  ;D I just needed to vent my anti-George Bush teen angst, it has served its purpose  >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/14/16 at 1:11 am


I dunno what's sillier: Nu Males or Nu Metal! ;D

2002:
"Cause she is watchin' wrestling
Creamin' over tough guys
Listenin' to rap metal
Turntables in her eyes

It's like a bad movie
She is lookin' through me
If you were me, then you'd be
Screamin' "Someone shoot me!"
As I fail miserably,
Tryin' to get the girl all the bad guys want.
She's the girl all the bad guys want!"


2016:
"Cause she is watchin' foreign films
Creamin' over femme guys
Listenin' to indie pop
Ukuleles in her eyes

It's like bad Netflix
She is lookin' through me
If you were me, then you'd be
Screamin' "Someone shoot me!"
As I fail miserably,
Tryin' to get the girl all the hipster guys want.
She's the girl all the hipster guys want!"



I'm not gonna lie... those 2016 lyrics actually looked pretty legit for a second.  :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 1:17 am


In Canada/Quebec we make poutine and other delicious food out of cheese curds (which comes from sour milk 'clumps') so that's a good thing :P

Did American Idiot hit old is gold status? I still like Jesus of Suburbia, but the American Idiot song makes no sense! What is "everybody do the propoganda!" supposed to mean  ;D I just needed to vent my anti-George Bush teen angst, it has served its purpose  >:(


Yeah, my uncle eats poutines all the time. It's pretty good for sour milk but Cork Tree is not. Cork Tree is like moldy cheese or something. I'll say this: it's much better than a Fever You Can't Sweat Out. Panic at the Disco are like Fall Out Boy but for people who need something sh!ttier to listen to.

Yeah, all the kids love it because it's a "classic". Green Day became the worst band ever during that era. They spent the entire time just riding off the success of that album, stealin' wads of cash from the kids parents and not worrying about making a new album because American Idiot was so "symbolic". That, along with Rock Against Bush, is the reason I would provoke "tru Punx" dudes at shows by telling them how "Pro-Bush" (even though I wasn't :P) It was. It's just a buncha political posturing! As if the guy who sang Longview is going to be the rally call to the new revolution! How many "political" songs are on the album? Two! >:(


I'm not gonna lie... those 2016 lyrics actually looked pretty legit for a second.  :o


Haha, I got rad writing skills!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 1:47 am


Yeah, my uncle eats poutines all the time. It's pretty good for sour milk but Cork Tree is not. Cork Tree is like moldy cheese or something. I'll say this: it's much better than a Fever You Can't Sweat Out. Panic at the Disco are like Fall Out Boy but for people who need something sh!ttier to listen to.

Yeah, all the kids love it because it's a "classic". Green Day became the worst band ever during that era. They spent the entire time just riding off the success of that album, stealin' wads of cash from the kids parents and not worrying about making a new album because American Idiot was so "symbolic". That, along with Rock Against Bush, is the reason I would provoke "tru Punx" dudes at shows by telling them how "Pro-Bush" (even though I wasn't :P) It was. It's just a buncha political posturing! As if the guy who sang Longview is going to be the rally call to the new revolution! How many "political" songs are on the album? Two! >:(

Haha, I got rad writing skills!


Panic! at the Disco are awesome too  :D

The political posturing was appropriate for the time :P You were just too old for teen-angst.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 1:51 am


Panic! at the Disco are awesome too  :D

The political posturing was appropriate for the time :P You were just too old for teen-angst.


Fall Out Boy and Panic at the Disco are the Creed and Nickelback of "Pop Punk". :P

I was, like, 22 when that came out! When's teen angst supposed to end, anyway?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 2:02 am


Fall Out Boy and Panic at the Disco are the Creed and Nickelback of "Pop Punk". :P

I was, like, 22 when that came out! When's teen angst supposed to end, anyway?


But they're emo not pop-punk  :o

Err, isn't it supposed to end at like 15, 16?  ;D I just got done with being 22, I graduated high school almost 6 years ago. What are you doing with teen-angst at 22? :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 2:07 am


But they're emo not pop-punk  :o

Err, isn't it supposed to end at like 15, 16?  ;D I just got done with being 22, I graduated high school almost 6 years ago. What are you doing with teen-angst at 22? :P


Emo!? >:(

Real Emo:
http://designermagazine.tripod.com/JimmyEatWorldPIC2.jpg

I don't think Panic at the Disco or Fall Out Boy look like Jimmy Eat World over here!

At 22, I was too busy being pissed off at Green Day for betraying the "been-here-since-1994" Pop Punk brotherhood with American Idiot while my girlfriend (now wife) would tell me "what's the big deal? it's not like they were real Punk in the first place" :\'(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 2:22 am


Emo!? >:(

Real Emo:

I don't think Panic at the Disco or Fall Out Boy look like Jimmy Eat World over here!

At 22, I was too busy being pissed off at Green Day for betraying the "been-here-since-1994" Pop Punk brotherhood with American Idiot while my girlfriend (now wife) would tell me "what's the big deal? it's not like they were real Punk in the first place" :\'(


Real emo look like the most boring, non-descript people ever  :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 2:23 am


Real emo look like the most boring, non-descript people ever  :P


Come on, are you telling me that if you were my age, you wouldn't look like this from 1995-2003?

http://www.dobi.nu/yourscenesucks/prehistoric/scene.jpg

Or would you rather the Sum 41 look?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 2:43 am


Come on, are you telling me that if you were my age, you wouldn't look like this from 1995-2003?

http://www.dobi.nu/yourscenesucks/prehistoric/scene.jpg

Or would you rather the Sum 41 look?


I have argyle sweaters now  :o am I unknowingly participating in 90s revival?  First I was unknowingly scene and now I'm unknowningly 90s revival  :(

In the early 2000s I was wearing plaid and other button-up shirts mostly, but my mom was dressing me. It's actually not too different from how I dress now, just replace baggy dickies and jeans for skinnies  :o Fashion comes in cycles eh.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 2:47 am


I have argyle sweaters now  :o am I unknowingly participating in 90s revival?  First I was unknowingly scene and now I'm unknowningly 90s revival  :(

In the early 2000s I was wearing plaid and other button-up shirts mostly, but my mom was dressing me. It's actually not too different from how I dress now, just replace baggy dickies and jeans for skinnies  :o


Haha, pretty much. The whole Emo revival of today is all hipsters nostalgic for the 90's and early 00's (they do it wrong, though).

Button-up shirts work for Emo as Jimmy Eat world wore a lot of them. Do you wear the chains, too? It's not early 00's enough unless you wear the chains!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 12:04 pm


Haha, pretty much. The whole Emo revival of today is all hipsters nostalgic for the 90's and early 00's (they do it wrong, though).

Button-up shirts work for Emo as Jimmy Eat world wore a lot of them. Do you wear the chains, too? It's not early 00's enough unless you wear the chains!


LOL but I'm not doing a 90s revival! I'm original god damnit  >:(

Err, I don't see any chains in that pictures? Are you talking about the keychain or are you talking about chain necklaces?  :P

I used to have a neon chunky-bead lanyard sticking out my backpocket in the late 2000s. Does that count? I should probably bring that back, but I don't really go for that schoolboy look anymore lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 1:22 pm


Hey, I'm not core millennial! You calin' me old?  :P I'm practically not even millennial.

Rise and Fall was decent, quit hating  ;D I agree American Idiot aged pretty badly though. That teen-angst is embarrassing  :-[

You're practically millennial to me! ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/14/16 at 1:33 pm

I may be on the cusp of core and late Generation Y, but I'm completely ashamed of my generation and wish I was born a late X'er instead.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 2:02 pm


You're practically millennial to me! ;)


You callin' me old?  >:(

I was obssessed with leather jackets and converse shoes in high school. Not sideway caps and popped collars  8-P 8-P

http://tcritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/n209816_33677730_4144.jpg

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 3:04 pm


I may be on the cusp of core and late Generation Y, but I'm completely ashamed of my generation and wish I was born a late X'er instead.

Why are you ashamed?! ??? :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/14/16 at 3:05 pm


Why are you ashamed?! ??? :o


Probably because of the obsessive 90s kids who think that anything after the 90s were garbage.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 3:26 pm


Probably because of the obsessive 90s kids who think that anything after the 90s were garbage.

Yeah they're full of sheesh! >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 3:38 pm

I'll say this though, if I had been born just a year(1994) earlier things would have definitely changed for me. But in the long run rather than the short run. ;)
First off, I would have had a different first grade teacher(the one I had was a replacement for the old first grade teacher that retired >:( ) The first grade teacher I had was TERRIBLE! >:( Also I would have reached my peak childhood in 1999 instead of 2000, which means I would have watched Cartoon Network earlier. I also would have gotten more N64 games, I would have gotten the N64 in 1998 instead of 1999. I would have gotten the PS2 probably in 2001 instead of 03. I also would have been a grade schooler when 9/11 happened. I would have gotten into wrestling a bit earlier as well. 1999 would have been my first Chicago trip not 2000. The 2003-04 school year would have been the last school year I was heavily invested in the kids networks, 2004-05 school year I would have started to transition away from it, instead of the 2005-06 school year originally. 
Those would have probably happened.

Now regarding my teen years that would have changed immensely. I would have been in high school before the 00s ended. I would have been able to vote for Obama in 2012. I would have left high school before the transitional 2013-14 school year.(2012-13 was transitional as well ;) ). Also, The entire mid 2010s would have also been most of my early 20s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/14/16 at 3:52 pm


Why are you ashamed?! ??? :o


Because my generation is the main proponent of the narrow-minded and hypocritical SJW culture we have today, as well as ridiculous social media trends that suck imagination and individuality out of everything.  People like you, who come here to reminisce about the 90s and early 2000s, don't factor into that population.  I loved the stuff I grew up with during the millennial era, but after that, popular culture just hasn't been the same as it was in the 80s or 90s (though there still some good things from 2003-2011).  I'm not a big fan of most American music after 2002 (especially 2012 on), I'm sick of the whole superhero movie craze, I can't stand modern fashion trends like hipster outfits, tattoos, and side buzzes; and I think a lot of the most popular shows, like Orange Is the New Black, are really overrated.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 4:01 pm


Because my generation is the main proponent of the narrow-minded and hypocritical SJW culture we have today, as well as ridiculous social media trends that suck imagination and individuality out of everything.  People like you, who come here to reminisce about the 90s and early 2000s, don't factor into that population.  I loved the stuff I grew up with during the millennial era, but after that, popular culture just hasn't been the same as it was in the 80s or 90s (though there still some good things from 2003-2011).  I'm not a big fan of most American music after 2002 (especially 2012 on), I'm sick of the whole superhero movie craze, I can't stand modern fashion trends like hipster outfits, tattoos, and side buzzes; and I think a lot of the most popular shows, like Orange Is the New Black, are really overrated.

This all the way! 2013 was the last year I really enjoyed! :\'(  I love the superhero movie trend though! ::)  But yeah Pop culture has not been THE same a long time. The mid 2010s are MUCH worse than the mid 2000s were. I can't stand this politically correct society we are in today. Gaming has become over exposed and commercialized. >:( Tv is kinda getting stale, it started last year honestly. :( Sports is STILL great though! :) But yeah the only tv shows I keep up with are Walking Dead, GOT, Arrow, Flash, Suits, Americans, Ray Donovan, Masters of Sex, etc. After the 2013-14 season things culturally speaking took a downturn and politically and lifestyle wise; the mid 2010s have been characterized by violence and scandals. 8-P

But back our generation, yeah I just don't get them sometimes, and they can be frustrating to be in the presence of at times.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/14/16 at 4:02 pm


Because my generation is the main proponent of the narrow-minded and hypocritical SJW culture we have today, as well as ridiculous social media trends that suck imagination and individuality out of everything.  People like you, who come here to reminisce about the 90s and early 2000s, don't factor into that population.  I loved the stuff I grew up with during the millennial era, but after that, popular culture just hasn't been the same as it was in the 80s or 90s (though there still some good things from 2003-2011).  I'm not a big fan of most American music after 2002 (especially 2012 on), I'm sick of the whole superhero movie craze, I can't stand modern fashion trends like hipster outfits, tattoos, and side buzzes; and I think a lot of the most popular shows, like Orange Is the New Black, are really overrated.


My generation is also like that, but at least I'm not some 2002-03 baby who thinks making Vines are cool. Seriously, I think my generation seems terrible, because at least yours can remember a time during Myspace, early Newgrounds, 90s cartoons, etc. My generation is just full of tech-savvy teens who do nothing but the latest Vine, YouTube, or Twitter trends. And don't even get me started on 2010s kids.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 4:21 pm


I'll say this though, if I had been born just a year(1994) earlier things would have definitely changed for me. But in the long run rather than the short run. ;)
First off, I would have had a different first grade teacher(the one I had was a replacement for the old first grade teacher that retired >:( ) The first grade teacher I had was TERRIBLE! >:( Also I would have reached my peak childhood in 1999 instead of 2000, which means I would have watched Cartoon Network earlier. I also would have gotten more N64 games, I would have gotten the N64 in 1998 instead of 1999. I would have gotten the PS2 probably in 2001 instead of 03. I also would have been a grade schooler when 9/11 happened. I would have gotten into wrestling a bit earlier as well. 1999 would have been my first Chicago trip not 2000. The 2003-04 school year would have been the last school year I was heavily invested in the kids networks, 2004-05 school year I would have started to transition away from it, instead of the 2005-06 school year originally. 
Those would have probably happened.

Now regarding my teen years that would have changed immensely. I would have been in high school before the 00s ended. I would have been able to vote for Obama in 2012. I would have left high school before the transitional 2013-14 school year.(2012-13 was transitional as well ;) ). Also, The entire mid 2010s would have also been most of my early 20s.


Those don't sound like huge differences to me, except the N64 being your main childhood console instead of the PS2. You favourite childhood game would have been Mario Party 2 like me  :D ;D ;D

1) I don't think you're completely sure that the last first grade teacher wasn't awful as well  :P But we all get crappy teachers sometimes, I doubt 94ers in your school had a free ride.
2) A lot of the shows airing in 2000 were airing in 1999 as well. Although you would have been more into Pokémania like my brother (born March '94). He started "dating" this chick who gave him free Pokémon cards and toys. He didn't even know her name for the longest time while they were dating LOL He just wanted free stuff.
3) Most '94ers didn't have a great understanding of 9/11 of the time. I can say that because not even '92/'93ers cared all that much. I thought planes crashing into buildings was normal. That's what too much Starfox 64 does to ya.
4) I think your Chicago trip would still have occurred in 2000  :P
5) Me and my '94er brother caught the last season of Friends while it was still airing. Other than that, I don't think one more year of watching adult/teen TV changes all that much. It was still the same era :P Did you watch Desperate Housewives and Prison Break?  ;D

6) 2009-10 and 2010-11 school year were the same, except the latter has more smartphones. If you were early '94 and got in at 2008-09, then things might be slightly different, but even that year was transitional haha.
7) Being able to vote for Obama sounds pretty cool though.
8 ) There's not much difference between being 18/19 and your early 20s from my personal experience.

Overall I don't think being 2-3 years apart makes a massive difference. Though there are definitely those little things  ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 4:24 pm


Those don't sound like huge differences to me, except the N64 being your main childhood console instead of the PS2. You favourite childhood game would have been Mario Party 2 like me :D ;D ;D

1) I don't think you're completely sure that the last first grade teacher wasn't awful as well  :P But we all get crappy teachers sometimes, I doubt 94ers in your school had a free ride.
2) A lot of the shows airing in 2000 were airing in 1999 as well. Although you would have been more into Pokémania like my brother (born March '94). He started "dating" this chick who gave him free Pokémon cards and toys. He didn't even know her name for the longest time while they were dating LOL He just wanted free stuff.
3) Most '94ers didn't have a great understanding of 9/11 of the time. I can say that because not even '92/'93ers cared all that much. I thought planes crashing into buildings was normal. That's what too much Starfox 64 does to ya.
4) I think your Chicago trip would still have occurred in 2000  :P
5) Me and my '94er brother caught the last season of Friends while it was still airing. Other than that, I don't think one more year of watching adult/teen TV changes all that much. It was still the same era :P Did you watch Desperate Housewives and Prison Break?  ;D

6) 2009-10 and 2010-11 school year were the same, except the latter has more smartphones. If you were early '94 and got in at 2008-09, then things might be slightly different, but even that year was transitional haha.
7) Being able to vote for Obama sounds pretty cool though.
8 ) There's not much difference between being 18/19 and your early 20s from my personal experience.

Overall I don't think being 2-3 years apart makes a massive difference. Though there are definitely those little things  ;)

Well....Super Mario 64, Sonic the Hedgehog and Jak & Daxter are my 3 favorite childhood games.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 4:29 pm


Well....Super Mario 64, Sonic the Hedgehog and Jak & Daxter are my 3 favorite childhood games.


But yeah, imagine playing Mario Party 2 at sleepovers with your friends. That game is amazing fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS4H8hI5i-E

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/14/16 at 4:30 pm


I'll say this though, if I had been born just a year(1994) earlier things would have definitely changed for me. But in the long run rather than the short run. ;)
First off, I would have had a different first grade teacher(the one I had was a replacement for the old first grade teacher that retired >:( ) The first grade teacher I had was TERRIBLE! >:( Also I would have reached my peak childhood in 1999 instead of 2000, which means I would have watched Cartoon Network earlier. I also would have gotten more N64 games, I would have gotten the N64 in 1998 instead of 1999. I would have gotten the PS2 probably in 2001 instead of 03. I also would have been a grade schooler when 9/11 happened. I would have gotten into wrestling a bit earlier as well. 1999 would have been my first Chicago trip not 2000. The 2003-04 school year would have been the last school year I was heavily invested in the kids networks, 2004-05 school year I would have started to transition away from it, instead of the 2005-06 school year originally. 
Those would have probably happened.


Wow lol. This was a bizarre post. I think my 2nd & 4th grade classes in elementary school were the best and I made the most friends out of those classes. However, from Kindergarten thru 2nd grade I used to get yelled by teachers a lot or get my clip moved because I didn't cooperate in class or wasn't focusing. My 2nd grade teacher straightened us out a lot and looking back I give her so much credit for how she shaped me as a kid, which made my behavior a lot better throughout 3rd-5th grade. When it comes to 1st grade, we can somewhat relate, it was probably my least favorite class & teacher of elementary school, but I still speak to my 1st grade teacher today and she's a really nice woman in person. She's always excited to see me too whenever I see her at the store sometimes. However, when I was in there sometimes I felt like I had a bad temper because there were a few kids who made fun of me including this one girl who was a huge b**tch and my 1st grade teacher would do nothing about it but when she snitched on me I'd have to set out for recess for 10 minutes..... I remember when I kept pulling on a girl's hair in there and the teacher made me write a letter to her as a punishment, and another day where it was a lot worse, but I don't remember the specific situation. I had a great time in 1st grade personal life and pop culturally. From K-2nd grade I always had bad temper days in class once or twice a month but I still appreciate the teachers for helping me out though. Now 4th grade was the first full grade I started having to worry about homework a lot more, and I remember my teacher complaining for not getting my binder organized ;D and speaking of CN, had I been born a year earlier or two I would've not only started watching the channel earlier, but I would have experienced the golden age a lot longer for more elementary school years. Instead of it being cutoff the summer before 3rd grade began.

For me personally.

Difficulty level from hardest to easiest: 5th grade >>>> 4th grade >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd & 3rd grade >>>> Kindergarten & 1st grade

Teachers: 3rd grade >>>> 2nd grade >>>> Kindergarten >>>> 4th grade >>>> 5th grade >>>> 1st grade

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 4:32 pm


But yeah, imagine playing Mario Party 2 at sleepovers with your friends. That game is amazing fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS4H8hI5i-E

You just brought back memories! :D  I remember the ball and lava level! :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/14/16 at 4:35 pm


This all the way! 2013 was the last year I really enjoyed! :\'(  I love the superhero movie trend though! ::)  But yeah Pop culture has not been THE same a long time. The mid 2010s are MUCH worse than the mid 2000s were. I can't stand this politically correct society we are in today. Gaming has become over exposed and commercialized. >:( Tv is kinda getting stale, it started last year honestly. :( Sports is STILL great though! :) But yeah the only tv shows I keep up with are Walking Dead, GOT, Arrow, Flash, Suits, Americans, Ray Donovan, Masters of Sex, etc. After the 2013-14 season things culturally speaking took a downturn and politically and lifestyle wise; the mid 2010s have been characterized by violence and scandals. 8-P


I didn't like Spring & Summer 2013, but Fall 2013 through Summer 2014 was great for me, and 2014 was the last year I really enjoyed. 2016 has started off much better than 2015 so far for me. Sports will always be great for me as long as these teams keep giving me great college football & NFL seasons, which is sadly over! I usually don't get into basketball until March Madness comes along. I agree with all the shows you listed, most I keep up with on Netflix, and a lot of the Walking Dead series has been filmed in my hometown and county. I don't care what people say but the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the modern DC Comics are both an epic part of 2010's culture, and I just saw Deadpool yesterday and *SPOILER*!!!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 4:42 pm


Wow lol. This was a bizarre post. I think my 2nd & 4th grade classes in elementary school were the best and I made the most friends out of those classes. However, from Kindergarten thru 2nd grade I used to get yelled by teachers a lot or get my clip moved because I didn't cooperate in class or wasn't focusing. My 2nd grade teacher straightened us out a lot and looking back I give her so much credit for how she shaped me as a kid, which made my behavior a lot better throughout 3rd-5th grade. When it comes to 1st grade, we can somewhat relate, it was probably my least favorite class & teacher of elementary school, but I still speak to my 1st grade teacher today and she's a really nice woman in person. She's always excited to see me too whenever I see her at the store sometimes. However, when I was in there sometimes I felt like I had a bad temper because there were a few kids who made fun of me including this one girl who was a huge b**tch and my 1st grade teacher would do nothing about it but when she snitched on me I'd have to set out for recess for 10 minutes..... I remember when I kept pulling on a girl's hair in there and the teacher made me write a letter to her as a punishment, and another day where it was a lot worse, but I don't remember the specific situation. I had a great time in 1st grade personal life and pop culturally. From K-2nd grade I always had bad temper days in class once or twice a month but I still appreciate the teachers for helping me out though. Now 4th grade was the first full grade I started having to worry about homework a lot more, and I remember my teacher complaining for not getting my binder organized ;D and speaking of CN, had I been born a year later or two I would've not only started watching the channel earlier, but I would have experienced the golden age a lot longer for more elementary school years. Instead of it being cutoff the summer before 3rd grade began.

For me personally.

Difficulty level from hardest to easiest: 5th grade >>>> 4th grade >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd & 3rd grade >>>> Kindergarten & 1st grade

Teachers: 3rd grade >>>> 2nd grade >>>> Kindergarten >>>> 4th grade >>>> 1st grade

Funny thing is I could have went into either greater detail! ;D ;D ;D ;D Anyways, when I first got to my school, the 1st grade-5th grade teachers at my school were LEGENDS, my 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th had been there since the 70s and 80s. :o  3rd grade teacher got there in the 90s I think. I'm glad I had almost all of them. Been born a year earlier I would have had them all.
Teachers: 5th grade>>>>>>3rd grade>>>>>>4th grade>>2nd grade>>>1st grade>Kindergarten>pre K (Obviously! ;D )

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 5:25 pm


LOL but I'm not doing a 90s revival! I'm original god damnit  >:(

Err, I don't see any chains in that pictures? Are you talking about the keychain or are you talking about chain necklaces?  :P

I used to have a neon chunky-bead lanyard sticking out my backpocket in the late 2000s. Does that count? I should probably bring that back, but I don't really go for that schoolboy look anymore lol.


No way! You're jocking the old style! :P

Yes. The keychain. We had to wear at least some that that had the word "chain" in it.

No! That is too late 2000's! You've gotta do it all, thick glasses (do you have those?), cuff jeans, converse, bowl cuts, argyle vests (Which you have) do it! Help me bring back the mighty 90's-early 00's!!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 6:12 pm


No way! You're jocking the old style! :P

Yes. The keychain. We had to wear at least some that that had the word "chain" in it.

No! That is too late 2000's! You've gotta do it all, thick glasses (do you have those?), cuff jeans, converse, bowl cuts, argyle vests (Which you have) do it! Help me bring back the mighty 90's-early 00's!!

The sweater looked nice, I didn't buy it because it was emo  8-P You know how hard it was to deny being emo when I was in high school. I have natural black hair. Now it's all coming back to haunt me.  :\'(

I don't wear glasses. Cuff jeans don't look good with skinny jeans. I have converse! Bowl cuts are weird. Only 90s thing I want back is flannel. They look warm  ;D

Also isn't dressing early 2000s kind of hipster??  :P :P :P :P :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 6:17 pm


The sweater looked nice, I didn't buy it because it was emo  8-P You know how hard it was to deny being emo when I was in high school. I have natural black hair. Now it's all coming back to haunt me.  :\'(

I don't wear glasses. Cuff jeans don't look good with skinny jeans. I have converse! Bowl cuts are weird. Only 90s thing I want back is flannel. They look warm  ;D

Also isn't dressing early 2000s kind of hipster??  :P :P :P :P :P


But this is the real pre-2004 Emo! The good emo! You don't have to deal with your Aiden, From First to Last and Hawthorne Heights stuff! No Myspace in this era! You get The Get Up Kids, Taking Back Sunday, Jimmy Eat World, Knapsack and The Promise Ring!

They're not that warm unless you get the ones with the extra layer inside. :P I thought this look would be totally up your alley! You've already do the converse! If not a bowl cut, a buzz cut or one of those weird parted hair cuts (Like Jim from JEW has) works, too! You will take the world by storm with your 90's nostalgia and I will help you be as authentic as possible!

No way!!! Dressing early 00's is not hipster at all! I hope you ain't callin' me a hipster or nothin'!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 7:14 pm


But this is the real pre-2004 Emo! The good emo! You don't have to deal with your Aiden, From First to Last and Hawthorne Heights stuff! No Myspace in this era! You get The Get Up Kids, Taking Back Sunday, Jimmy Eat World, Knapsack and The Promise Ring!

They're not that warm unless you get the ones with the extra layer inside. :P I thought this look would be totally up your alley! You've already do the converse! If not a bowl cut, a buzz cut or one of those weird parted hair cuts (Like Jim from JEW has) works, too! You will take the world by storm with your 90's nostalgia and I will help you be as authentic as possible!

No way!!! Dressing early 00's is not hipster at all! I hope you ain't callin' me a hipster or nothin'!


I don't want to be emo anything  ;D Although I can't deny the dude in that picture is very well dressed. But I try not to copy other people's styles, because then new stuff comes out and then I have to copy that. It gets outdated very quickly. I have to be a fashion pioneer  8) That's why I bought the Oxford pants.

Are you speaking from experience with the flannel there?  :P I have one flannel shirt actually, I bought it when I was in high school. It's pretty thick and warm.

Early 2000s is a sort of alternative hipster. Your friend agrees with me  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 7:19 pm


I don't want to be emo anything  ;D Although I can't deny the dude in that picture is very well dressed. But I try not to copy other people's styles, because then new stuff comes out and then I have to copy that. It gets outdated very quickly. I have to be a fashion pioneer  8) That's why I bought the Oxford pants.

Are you speaking from experience with the flannel there?  :P I have one flannel shirt actually, I bought it when I was in high school. It's pretty thick and warm.

Early 2000s is a sort of alternative hipster. Your friend agrees with me  ;D


How about this? First you can be Ska, right? And then you go Emo! You'll be so original!!!!

Yeah, back in the early 90's. I stopped wearing flannel around 1994-1995 when I started getting into more Green Day and Offspring. :P

He is not my "friend" he is an acquaintance! >:( Early 00's clothing is too cool to be alternative hipster! Hipsters are all snobby and pretentious whereas I'm Xtreme!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 11:30 pm


How about this? First you can be Ska, right? And then you go Emo! You'll be so original!!!!

Yeah, back in the early 90's. I stopped wearing flannel around 1994-1995 when I started getting into more Green Day and Offspring. :P

He is not my "friend" he is an acquaintance! >:( Early 00's clothing is too cool to be alternative hipster! Hipsters are all snobby and pretentious whereas I'm Xtreme!


I only have a vague understanding of what Ska is, but I already saw your comic. You tryna fool me? That's the least original thing ever. :P

I just finished listening to the Offspring songs you recommended. Come Out and Play and I Choose were my favourites!  :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 11:33 pm


I only have a vague understanding of what Ska is, but I already saw your comic. You tryna fool me? That's the least original thing ever. :P

I just finished listening to the Offspring songs you recommended. Come Out and Play and I Choose were my favourites!  :D


It's very original! Everyone will think you're so unique for doing it, trust me! By the way, you want me to recommend you some Ska, too? I added some Ska Punk albums on that big "List of Albums" for you to listen to but if you need more I can give you the goods. ;D

Oh rad! Those songs rule. See? Much better than Rise and Fall! The old Offspring is the best Offspring.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 11:35 pm


It's very original! Everyone will think you're so unique for doing it, trust me! By the way, you want me to recommend you some Ska, too? I added some Ska Punk albums on that big "List of Albums" for you to listen to but if you need more I can give you the goods. ;D

Oh rad! Those songs rule. See? Much better than Rise and Fall! The old Offspring is the best Offspring.


I finished listening to Jimmy Eat World's Static album a while ago, there's so many good songs on that one. I think 77 Satellites, Rockstar, In the Same Room, Seventeen and Robot Factory were my favourite. Digits was hillarious lol.

I'm listening to Lit's A Place In The Sun album now, since I'm already somewhat familiar with that album. It's already going to take me the whole year to finish that list of yours, but you may as well add it I guess  ;D I need to listen to songs three or four times before I decide if I like it.  :o

edit: I like old Offspring just as much as new Offspring right now :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 11:39 pm


I finished listening to Jimmy Eat World's Static album a while ago, there's so many good songs on that one. I think 77 Satellites, Rockstar, In the Same Room, Seventeen and Robot Factory were my favourite. Digits was hillarious lol.

I'm listening to Lit's A Place In The Sun album now, since I'm already somewhat familiar with that album. It's already going to take me the whole year to finish that list of yours, but you may as well add it I guess  ;D


Super stoked you like it! It's definitely one of the best Emo records of all time. Man, it just went over everyone's heads! Even today! Why! It's so good!

Oh yeah, that record is sick! What records have you listened to so far (if you haven't yet. It is a big list!)

For some good Ska, I'd start with some Less Than Jake. Listen to their Losing Streak and Hello Rockview albums. Good, good sh!t my friend. Good, good sh!t indeed!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/15/16 at 12:24 am


Super stoked you like it! It's definitely one of the best Emo records of all time. Man, it just went over everyone's heads! Even today! Why! It's so good!

Oh yeah, that record is sick! What records have you listened to so far (if you haven't yet. It is a big list!)

For some good Ska, I'd start with some Less Than Jake. Listen to their Losing Streak and Hello Rockview albums. Good, good sh!t my friend. Good, good sh!t indeed!


Haha yes. It also padded up my 90s playlist as well. Before that I only had some Gin Blossoms and like 2 Nirvana songs LOL

Well, before I added it to my "to listen to" playlist, I already had listened to My Own Worst Enemy and Miserable. I just listened to No Big Thing and The Best Is Yet to Come Undone. Very decent so far.

Are those guys on the giant list you made? That's my reference guide right now  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 12:34 am


Haha yes. It also padded up my 90s playlist as well. Before that I only had some Gin Blossoms and like 2 Nirvana songs LOL

Well, before I added it to my "to listen to" playlist, I already had listened to My Own Worst Enemy and Miserable. I just listened to No Big Thing and The Best Is Yet to Come Undone. Very decent so far.

Are those guys on the giant list you made? That's my reference guide right now  ;D


By "90's playlist" do you mean 1990-1998? Remember, if TheEarly90sguy taught us anything it's
80's = 1978-1990
90's = 1990-1999
00's = 1999-2011
10's = 2011-present

Ooooorrrr, you could do it the Jordan way (the real factual way! >:() and put 1993-2003 as your 90's playlist.

The whole album is pretty rad. It's got some metally influences here and there too (which almost every band seemed to do back then!).

Yeeepp! I think I put a couple of ska bands at the end but Less Than Jake are definitely on the list.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/15/16 at 12:55 am


By "90's playlist" do you mean 1990-1998? Remember, if TheEarly90sguy taught us anything it's
80's = 1978-1990
90's = 1990-1999
00's = 1999-2011
10's = 2011-present


Here are some ideal songs to include on those playlists:

1980s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW046HsrCfk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsoa0tAzPUM

1990s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3hmgkPYUuk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb2MRZRq7XA

2000s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBcADQziQWY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1_uwJQSpoo

2010s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDTpnsHyNnY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSSYisgN7I

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 1:10 am


Here are some ideal songs to include on those playlists:

1980s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW046HsrCfk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsoa0tAzPUM

1990s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3hmgkPYUuk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb2MRZRq7XA

2000s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBcADQziQWY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1_uwJQSpoo

2010s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDTpnsHyNnY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSSYisgN7I


Once again, you have made me spit out my drink. I love this post!

This is how I define the 80's to 10's altogether:

The 80's:

http://thevistapress.com/wp-content/uploads/American-Bandstand.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01929/benny_1929841c.jpg

(the only things of the 80's that are 80's culture. EVERYTHING ELSE WAS MEANT FOR THE 90'S!!! THESE ARE THE FACTS!!!!)

The 90's:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Official_Portrait_of_President_Reagan_1981.jpg

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2014/media/164375/_original/1035x1152-T8DTEMU_EC001_H.JPG

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/transformers-geewun.jpg

http://www.motleycruenorway.net/FanClub/025.JPG

But remember, pre-93:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/1b80abd550ba0776055a245938439318/tumblr_mnslkny9l31rrg6kro1_500.jpg

Post-93:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61MBcUwrUfL.jpg

The 00's:
http://www.alternativenation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/nirvanasmear.jpg

http://socialmediaweek.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2015/06/1990s-grunge-wear.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/Green_Day_-_Dookie_cover.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9a/DazedConfused.jpg/220px-DazedConfused.jpg

And finally, the 10's:

http://d3819ii77zvwic.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/george-w-bush-saul-loeb-afp.jpg

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/artists/50-cent.jpg

http://souljaboy.seenon.com/img/product/cats/00025362-734715.jpg



Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/15/16 at 2:44 am

I'll agree with ThatEarly90sGuy that the late 70s had certain "foreshadowings" of the 80s, though 70s culture (disco, AOR rock, etc.) was still quite prominent at the time.

Even though this song was released in 1979, it sounds VERY 80s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldyx3KHOFXw

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 2:47 am


I'll agree with ThatEarly90sGuy that the late 70s had certain "foreshadowings" of the 80s, though 70s culture (disco, AOR rock, etc.) was still quite prominent at the time.

Even though this song was released in 1979, it sounds VERY 80s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldyx3KHOFXw


I also agree but he acts like the 80's starting in 1978 is some definite thing. I mean, it is his opinion and all so maybe he sees something though his eyes that I don't but I have to disagree. In my opinion, the definite 80's began right as 1981 rolled around. 1978-1980 feels like a transition period.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/15/16 at 2:53 am

I also agree with him that the early 90s - heck, maybe even up to 1996, was something of a "continuation" of the late 80s (though this happens with every decade, where the beginning is similar to the last decade, then the end is completely different).

Arcades and 2d gaming were dominant over 3d gaming. SNES and Genesis were the logical successors to NES and Master System. 80s cartoons were still being re-run prominently and watched on VHSes before fading into obscurity. etc. etc.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 3:00 am


I also agree with him that the early 90s - heck, maybe even up to 1996, was something of a "continuation" of the late 80s (though this happens with every decade, where the beginning is similar to the last decade, then the end is completely different).

Arcades and 2d gaming were dominant over 3d gaming. SNES and Genesis were the logical successors to NES and Master System. 80s cartoons were still being re-run prominently and watched on VHSes before fading into obscurity. etc. etc.


I can see why you'd say that and that makes a lot of sense. The things you mentioned are definitely successors to the 80's things. It's like the 6th gen. I strongly consider those systems the successors to the 5th gen as they continued the same vibe. But back to the 80's, up until 1996, you'd still see some 80's hairstyles (mostly for women) and maybe some 80's sounding songs on the radio. I wouldn't really say the 90's were like the 80's (well, they kinda were since all the popular 90's things are just underground 80's things made mainstream and aren't really as authentic as the 80's) but I definitely see the connection.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/15/16 at 3:07 am

Out of all the times you grew up in, which do you think is best: the late 80s/early 90s (87-92), the "real" 90s (93-97), or the Y2K era (98-2003)? This must be a tough choice. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 3:10 am


Out of all the times you grew up in, which do you think is best: the late 80s/early 90s (87-92), the "real" 90s (93-97), or the Y2K era (98-2003)? This must be a tough choice. ;D


It's pretty tough but I'd have to go with the 80's for sure. The Y2K era and the real 90's are equally great but there is something about the 80's that I love. Not even really relating to my childhood. Growing up in Norcal and being apart of the Pop Punk scene in the 90's-early 00's, you'd hear from a lot of 60's born Gen X'ers about how the scene was really good from 1986 with the beginnings of Gilman (a Punk club) and Lookout records. I'd love to go back and experience that especially for a band like Screeching Weasel in their absolute prime (which was 1988-1994). I love the TV and movies from the time, too. Bill and Ted is one of the best. Skateboarding was also totally rad then, too. I wish I was a little bit older so I could experience this time. My favorite era of Pop Culture altogether is 1977-2003.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/15/16 at 2:29 pm

My view on generations (varies depending on person). If there are errors, please feel free to correct them.

1883-1898: Lost Gen
1899-1902: Lost/GI
1903-1923: GI Gen
1924-1927: GI/Silent
1928-1941: Silent
1942-1945: Silent/Boomer
1946-1960: Baby Boomer
1961-1964: Boomer/X cusp
1965-1977: Gen X
1978-1981: X/Y cusp, Gen Catalano
1982-1997: Gen Y
1998-2001: Y/Z cusp, Gen Katniss
2002+: Gen Z

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/15/16 at 3:12 pm


I'll agree with ThatEarly90sGuy that the late 70s had certain "foreshadowings" of the 80s, though 70s culture (disco, AOR rock, etc.) was still quite prominent at the time.

Even though this song was released in 1979, it sounds VERY 80s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldyx3KHOFXw


Gary Numan could've waited a few more years to release the song. ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/15/16 at 6:49 pm


Here are some ideal songs to include on those playlists:

2010s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSSYisgN7I


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NmxSv-brC-I/UMoh1F7A_2I/AAAAAAAAD6s/Z1whmiDv2ts/s1600/stop-stop.gif

STOP defiling my 2010s! There's no Soulja Boy in it!!  8-P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/15/16 at 6:51 pm


By "90's playlist" do you mean 1990-1998? Remember, if TheEarly90sguy taught us anything it's
80's = 1978-1990
90's = 1990-1999
00's = 1999-2011
10's = 2011-present

Ooooorrrr, you could do it the Jordan way (the real factual way! >:() and put 1993-2003 as your 90's playlist.

The whole album is pretty rad. It's got some metally influences here and there too (which almost every band seemed to do back then!).

Yeeepp! I think I put a couple of ska bands at the end but Less Than Jake are definitely on the list.


I had to extend the 2000s to be 1994-2011 because the Offspring stuff sounded way too early 2000s for me to put it on the other playlist  LOL. But it's still mostly 1999-2011  :P :P :P :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 7:04 pm


I had to extend the 2000s to be 1994-2011 because the Offspring stuff sounded way too early 2000s for me to put it on the other playlist  LOL. But it's still mostly 1999-2011  :P :P :P :P


Haha, then it is settled! The early 00's started in 1994!! ;D

If you've got 1998 stuff on there like Home Grown, The Ataris or MxPx then you might have some trouble fitting 1998 in with the rest of the 90's, too. ;D


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NmxSv-brC-I/UMoh1F7A_2I/AAAAAAAAD6s/Z1whmiDv2ts/s1600/stop-stop.gif

STOP defiling my 2010s! There's no Soulja Boy in it!!  8-P


No, no, no. If we're going by Early90sGuy rules then there has to be Soulja Boy and when someone disagrees, you've got to start yelling about how they weren't born yet ooooorrrrr about how God works in mysterious ways and he planned out Pop Culture like this to take place.

Examples:


I don't know why everyone else in the world appears to like '93-'99 so much. Like 80s fan say, "The true 90s are overrated". 1993 WAS NOT EARLY 90S. YOU WEREN'T THERE. I CAN TELL BECAUSE YOU SAID IT LOOKS LIKE THE EARLY 90s TO YOU. 1993 IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE MID 90S.  1993 WAS THE YEAR OF GANGSTA RAP AND GRUNGE. I dislike that year will all of my hate. >:(



I'm positive about the styles as I WAS THERE! Those were not universally 90s styles. YOU WEREN'T EVEN ALIVE BEFORE 1993! HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME THOSE WERE UNIVERSAL 90S STYLES?! Those crappy shows you mentioned are not a part of mid 90s pop culture! When we look back on 1993, we do not say to ourselves, "Wow, that Wonder Years rip-off of a vehicle for Ben Savage premiered in 1993"? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT POP CULTURE IS?!

No, flannel wasn't the only thing that made the mid 90s dark. The mid 90s were the "Grunge days" of the 90s. You couldn't go anywhere without being reminded that Kurt Cobain died. When the news coverage wasn't on, My So Called Life was. Ugh, K-Mart sold flannel for some time in 1995 and '96.

YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT 1993 WAS A PART OF THE EARLY 90S. AS SOON AS HW BUSH LEFT OFFICE, THE EARLY 90S WERE OVER! AS SOON AS CLINTON CAME IN, AN OVERLOAD OF GRUNGE AND GANGSTA RAP MUSIC FOLLOWED.


Then, if someone tries to argue with you some more, you tell them this:

STOP IMPOSING YOUR BELIEFS ON ME!


Oh and don't forget to this classic:

I am correct. After all, I'm the Early 90s Guy, don't you think I should know when they took place?! I'm not going to let two younger folks tell me when the early 90s ended. They were babies  and children, therefore they can say nothing on the subject. All they can do is look at what was listed in a book and call it fact despite being way too young to experience it. Of course, everyone, including yourself, takes their side and is out to make me look nuts when I know what I'm talking about. Thanks.



So basically, the mid-late 90s were associated with the 2000s? I can get that 1999 was the start of the cultural 2000s, but not 1994-1998. They were mostly associated with the 90s.


Well, in my opinion 1998 is more like the early 00's (not the real 2000's that began in 2004) and not really like the years before it but if someone wants to compare the mid 90's to the early 00's then they are allowed to have that opinion. It's not the definite truth or absolute fact like my opinion is but oh well... ::)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/15/16 at 7:07 pm


My view on generations (varies depending on person). If there are errors, please feel free to correct them.

1883-1898: Lost Gen
1899-1902: Lost/GI
1903-1923: GI Gen
1924-1927: GI/Silent
1928-1941: Silent
1942-1945: Silent/Boomer
1946-1960: Baby Boomer
1961-1964: Boomer/X cusp
1965-1977: Gen X
1978-1981: X/Y cusp, Gen Catalano
1982-1997: Gen Y
1998-2001: Y/Z cusp, Gen Katniss
2002+: Gen Z


That's interesting but why do the last four have cusps? And why couldn't they be added to the previous generation or the following one.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/15/16 at 7:10 pm


I had to extend the 2000s to be 1994-2011 because the Offspring stuff sounded way too early 2000s for me to put it on the other playlist  LOL. But it's still mostly 1999-2011  :P :P :P :P


So basically, the mid-late 90s were associated with the 2000s? I can get that 1999 was the start of the cultural 2000s, but not 1994-1998. They were mostly associated with the 90s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/15/16 at 7:56 pm


That's interesting but why do the last four have cusps? And why couldn't they be added to the previous generation or the following one.


By what I have seen, a lot of people seem to put three or four years in cusp zones. Four years seems to be balanced in my opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/15/16 at 8:25 pm


Haha, then it is settled! The early 00's started in 1994!! ;D

If you've got 1998 stuff on there like Home Grown, The Ataris or MxPx then you might have some trouble fitting 1998 in with the rest of the 90's, too. ;D

No, no, no. If we're going by Early90sGuy rules then there has to be Soulja Boy and when someone disagrees, you've got to start yelling about how they weren't born yet ooooorrrrr about how God works in mysterious ways and he planned out Pop Culture like this to take place.

Examples:

Then, if someone tries to argue with you some more, you tell them this:
Oh and don't forget to this classic:
Well, in my opinion 1998 is more like the early 00's (not the real 2000's that began in 2004) and not really like the years before it but if someone wants to compare the mid 90's to the early 00's then they are allowed to have that opinion. It's not the definite truth or absolute fact like my opinion is but oh well... ::)


LOL wow those meltdowns are epic. The dude might be weird but at least his years are good for music categorization :P :P

1993 is still early 90s by my playlist rules though, I wonder what he has to say that ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/15/16 at 8:27 pm


So basically, the mid-late 90s were associated with the 2000s? I can get that 1999 was the start of the cultural 2000s, but not 1994-1998. They were mostly associated with the 90s.


I know. I was just putting some 90s songs in my 2000s playlist because they fit too well there. Y'know "song that sound like they came out of the wrong era" stuff. I honestly don't know why I group things by decade. It's easier than grouping by genre or mood though lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 8:28 pm


LOL wow those meltdowns are epic. The dude might be weird but at least his years are good for music categorization :P :P

1993 is still early 90s by my playlist rules though, I wonder what he has to say that ;D


His arguments are the best. If it were up to me, he'd be on here everyday having endless arguments. This is the stuff of legends.

Probably this:
1993 WAS NOT EARLY 90S. YOU WEREN'T THERE. I CAN TELL BECAUSE YOU SAID IT LOOKS LIKE THE EARLY 90s TO YOU. 1993 IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE MID 90S.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/16/16 at 5:53 pm


His arguments are the best. If it were up to me, he'd be on here everyday having endless arguments. This is the stuff of legends.

Probably this:


Wait, did you make those posts up, or is that what he actually said?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/16/16 at 5:57 pm


Wait, did you make those posts up, or is that what he actually said?


I'm pretty sure that's what TheEarly90sGuy said. He basically has a pet peeve for anyone saying that 1993 was an early 90s year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/16/16 at 6:09 pm


I'm pretty sure that's what TheEarly90sGuy said. He basically has a pet peeve for anyone saying that 1993 was an early 90s year.
He did. And that's something he doesn't understand. That year is definitely early 90s as the vibe was still there. Yeah, its core 90s, but it doesn't mean it was part of the middle. Even adults have said that year is early 90s. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/16/16 at 6:59 pm


He did. And that's something he doesn't understand. That year is definitely early 90s as the vibe was still there. Yeah, its core 90s, but it doesn't mean it was part of the middle. Even adults have said that year is early 90s.


Kind of like how 1997 was both a core and late 90s year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/16/16 at 7:29 pm


Kind of like how 1997 was both a core and late 90s year.
Yeah and so was 1998. Yes, those years were late 90s, but they were still core 90s as well. I think some people don't realize that mid and core are not synonymous with each other. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/16/16 at 7:35 pm


Wait, did you make those posts up, or is that what he actually said?


Nope! They're 100% real! Check his post history, it's all there. The only reason I can't properly quote is because the topics are locked. Unlocked topics are fine.

This one's a gem. He always talks about the Turtles yet he says...


These guys are what killed Saturday morning cartoons:

https://mylittlebexi.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/saved-by-the-bell.jpg

Teens and their younger brothers would much rather gaze at Kelly Kapowski then watch The Real Ghostbusters.


He's right, though. Looking at Kelly Kapowski was fun but I think he's lying. He seems like the type to much rather "gaze" at mutant trutles or giant transforming robots.

This one is also another gem:


Children of the 90s talking down to the children of the 2000s? Ha! That's the pot calling the kettle black. There must not be enough children of the 80s to remind "the 90s kids" the 90s were extremely boring. I doubt "the 90s kids" would be able to take all of the talk about the 80s actually having original ideas in them. Most Millenials I know are pansies.  They would probably say something like, "The 90s did not suck". Yet, most of them could not even define the 90s. I doubt people born in '88 and up could even tell you there were two presidents in office from 1990-1999. They love shouting that they're bona fide children of the 1990s.


If you're a Millennial, you're probably a pansy according to this Early 90s guy!

He loves to say that, too. "According to this Early 90s Guy everything after 1993 sucks!"

Case in point...

Yeah, I always liked the packaging for the TMNT toyline. Three illustrations were featured on the backer and then when you looked to the right of the last picture, you saw the figure. It was a neat idea because there are four turtles.

Have you heard of the Might Morphin' Power Rangers film that is due out next year? The mid 90s revival is in full swing, it seems. Being The Early 90s Guy, I don't see how anyone could ever want the mid 1990s back. They weren't much different from today in terms of dress code, entertainment and political issues. I guess this is supposed to be the decade where '90s kids' get nostalgic for the times of their youth.


Yep, I was making it up. Me being the Early 90s guy and all....

I think the OP meant, "Pop culturally were the late 90s darker than the early 90s"? In that case, yes they were. You are correct about one thing. There were high crime rates and a recession in the early 90s. Our recession was nowhere near as bad as the early 80s one.



Being The Early 90s Guy, I'll never love any year after 1992 the way I do '90-'92. I thought late '10 was the best part of the decade thus far. As 2010 was slowly morphing into 2011, some of the most memorable pop culture of the decade was churned out. Think about it, the fall of 2010 gave us "Instagram, Keep Calm and Carry On, Adventure Time, Lego Minifigures in toy stores, The Walking Dead, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and YOLO frozen yogurt". It was the most innovative part of the 2010s decade. 2011 will always be the true start of the 2010s decade, so 2010 was in the middle of that period starting in 2008 and the beginning of the 10s.

The only year that competes with late 2010 is 2013. '13 starts off as one large continuation to 2012. The last episodes to the first and best season of Scandal were shown. America was still ranting and raving about "The Hobbit". They were doing the Gangham style dance to "Call Me Maybe" on the dance floor. Mothers everywhere were going, "How cute is that Honey Boo Boo"?  Sadly, George Zimmerman got away with murdering young Trayvon Martin. Most importantly, "Orange Is the New Black" premiered on Netflix. 2012 was indeed explosive with "50 Shades of Grey", but almost everyone I know is doing their crazy eyes impression right now.



For this early 90s guy, 1993-1999 happened and ruined everything.


It's like being the "Early 90s Guy" makes you the definitive source on the early 90s. ;D I love it. Dude's f*ckin' hilarious! I could read these posts all day. I'm gonna look for the ones where he yells about Jesus and how there have been no cultural changes since 1993.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/16/16 at 9:14 pm

I love how TheEarly90sGuy despises all culture from January 20, 1993 on, yet he still argues passionately about how the entire 2000s were defined by the spirit of '99, which includes things like Pokémania, Pottermania, pre-revival Family Guy, American Pie sequels (except American Reunion), tamagotchis, boybands, Britney Spears makeup kits, Men in Black II, Jurassic Park III, Nirvana shirts, and DVD releases of films from 1990-1998.  Also, George W. Bush was merely leading us to American troops still being in Iraq and Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden being slain in 2011; Get Rich or Die Tryin' was but the first real precurssor to Curtis Jackson starring in Blood Out, Setup, and All Things Fall Apart in 2011; All BlackBerry phones released throughout the decade were paving the way for the BlackBerry Bold 9788's release in 2011.

It's like apparently popular culture was no longer for his generation by then, yet he still thinks he understands it better than those who actually consumed it.  I suppose, too, that Frozen and Amazon Prime Video are not significant yet, and that they're simply meant for 2022.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/16/16 at 9:23 pm


I love how TheEarly90sGuy despises all culture from January 20, 1993 on, yet he still argues passionately about how the entire 2000s were defined by the spirit of '99, which includes things like Pokémania, Pottermania, pre-revival Family Guy, American Pie sequels (except American Reunion), tamagotchis, boybands, Britney Spears makeup kits, Men in Black II, Jurassic Park III, Nirvana shirts, and DVD releases of films from 1990-1998.  Also, George W. Bush was merely leading us to American troops still being in Iraq and Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden being slain in 2011; Get Rich or Die Tryin' was but the first real precurssor to Curtis Jackson starring in Blood Out, Setup, and All Things Fall Apart in 2011; All BlackBerry phones released throughout the decade were paving the way for the BlackBerry Bold 9788's release in 2011.

It's like apparently popular culture was no longer for his generation by then, yet he still thinks he understands it better than those who actually consumed it.  I suppose, too, that Frozen and Amazon Prime Video are not significant yet, and that they're simply meant for 2022.


I remember this one time he said "sequels are a sign of the times. There we no 90's sequels before 1999" and I brought up Scream 2 and Lost World and then he said "That is to show a sign of the times that 1999 was heading our way. 1999 is the true start of the 2000's" which makes no sense. Scream 2 and Lost World are exempt from these rules in the "Book of Early 90s Guy" just like American Reunion because they're released too early/late. His rule is based off of sequel releases, isn't it!? Why are things exempt!? God damn Early 90s Dude... The best is when he doesn't know what to say and brings the "creator" into it. "GOD'S WORK IS IN EVERYTHING!"

He isn't just a definitive source on the early 90's but all pop culture since the 60's. How the f*ck is American Bandstand or the Benny Hill Show 80's things!? ;D ;D ;D ;D Where in his theory does it say that?? ::) Wouldn't 70's things be 80's things!? It's like, since 1990 is closest to the 80's, he made up new rules just for this decade and this decade alone. Why? Because 1990, that's why. He said 2017 will bring changes that will bring us to the 2020's or something in his post history but I forget the page.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/16/16 at 9:27 pm


You could pop off their arms ands legs too. The realistic feeling skin made them so slammin' and sweet (pardon my early 90s slang). They were the best action figures of the early 90s, if you ask me. They go for a lot on Ebay now, but they turn up in action figure lots from time to time. Have you seen the Movie Star Splinter with the fur made of felt? I used to take my cousin to get all of the latest TMNT action figures, so I knew all about them. Rhazar was one of the hardest figures to find.


.........

http://freeiconbox.com/icon/256/31032.png

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/16/16 at 11:20 pm


I remember this one time he said "sequels are a sign of the times. There we no 90's sequels before 1999" and I brought up Scream 2 and Lost World and then he said "That is to show a sign of the times that 1999 was heading our way. 1999 is the true start of the 2000's" which makes no sense. Scream 2 and Lost World are exempt from these rules in the "Book of Early 90s Guy" just like American Reunion because they're released too early/late. His rule is based off of sequel releases, isn't it!? Why are things exempt!? God damn Early 90s Dude... The best is when he doesn't know what to say and brings the "creator" into it. "GOD'S WORK IS IN EVERYTHING!"


Where is your source of evidence, Wikipedia?  Everybody I ever met in my hometown knew that 1999 was the only year that all 2000s culture could be found on t-shirts and supermarket shelves.  If it wasn't for Jurassic Park and its sequel, we wouldn't have this in 1999:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Warpath_Jurassic_Park.jpg

I rest my case. ;)

He isn't just a definitive source on the early 90's but all pop culture since the 60's. How the f*ck is American Bandstand or the Benny Hill Show 80's things!? ;D ;D ;D ;D

The 1980s were the first decade that Billy Preston's "Space Race" was used during the mid-breaks in American Bandstand since day 1 (even after they stopped using it in 1987, episodes with the theme still existed in 1990), as well as the first decade that the Thames era of the Benny Hill Show was on television from the beginning.  Not that you should be questioning any of this anyway; you weren't alive for the entirety of the 80s, so you don't understand the spirit of '78 the way TheEarly90sGuy does, having been 1 at the time. :)

Where in his theory does it say that?? ::) Wouldn't 70's things be 80's things!? It's like, since 1990 is closest to the 80's, he made up new rules just for this decade and this decade alone. Why? Because 1990, that's why. He said 2017 will bring changes that will bring us to the 2020's or something in his post history but I forget the page.


Considering how obsessed he is with 1990 though, he sure doesn't know how to explicitly define it.  He makes this huge point about the latter months of the year being very different from the first, yet he still firmly believes we suddenly began heading for 1999 as soon as the clock struck midnight on January 1, 1990 - that is, unless it was when the intro to The Simpsons first aired alongside the Bart the Genius episode about two weeks later, I'm not sure.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/16/16 at 11:32 pm


Where is your source of evidence, Wikipedia?  Everybody I ever met in my hometown knew that 1999 was the only year that all 2000s culture could be found on t-shirts and supermarket shelves.  If it wasn't for Jurassic Park and its sequel, we wouldn't have this in 1999:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Warpath_Jurassic_Park.jpg

I rest my case. ;)


Clumsy me. It's like American Pie. As the Early 90s Guy says:

On a side note, American Pie: The Full Reveal was sold in Australia for 11 months in 2010 and all of 2011.  ;)


What year did American Pie premier? 1999. ;)

More 1999 things:

blink-182's Enema of the State.

What was released in 2011?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bb/Blink-182_-_Neighborhoods_cover.jpg/220px-Blink-182_-_Neighborhoods_cover.jpg ;)

How about some KoRn?

Issues came out in 1999. Huh, what came out in 2011?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/Korn_Path_of_Totality.jpg/220px-Korn_Path_of_Totality.jpg

Ah, yes, I see it. It's 2000's culture, the spirit of 1999. coming full circle. If you don't believe me it's probably because you read Wikipedia. The 2000's are 2000 to 2009 and when Jimmy says jump, I jump.


The 1980s were the first decade that Billy Preston's "Space Race" was used during the mid-breaks in American Bandstand since day 1 (even after they stopped using it in 1987, episodes with the theme still existed in 1990), as well as the first decade that the Thames era of the Benny Hill Show was on television from the beginning.  Not that you should be questioning any of this anyway; you weren't alive for the entirety of the 80s, so you don't understand the spirit of '78 the way TheEarly90sGuy does, having been 1 at the time. :)


Clumsy me. I was only born in 1982! How could I understand the spirit of 1978 like The Early 90s Guy, who was born in 1977, does! I'm just some no-good wikipedia reader. When Jimmy says jump, I jump.


Considering how obsessed he is with 1990 though, he sure doesn't know how to explicitly define it.  He makes this huge point about the latter months of the year being very different from the first, yet he still firmly believes we suddenly began heading for 1999 as soon as the clock struck midnight on January 1, 1990 - that is, unless it was when the intro to The Simpsons first aired alongside the Bart the Genius episode about two weeks later, I'm not sure.


It's weird because his older posts say things like "Coming from a guy who flashes back to 1991 everyday" and "1991 is my favorite year". Why'd he change his mind? One of his major points is that he was there to experience the early 90's and that's where his knowledge comes from but when I asked him why his older posts say "1990-1992 are extensions of 1989" he told me "That's when I didn't properly understand the early 90s" He's always had the weird 1990 theory but he's only recently dropped the co-existing "extension of 1989" theory. Makes no sense.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/17/16 at 12:02 am


Clumsy me. It's like American Pie. As the Early 90s Guy says:
What year did American Pie premier? 1999. ;)

More 1999 things:

blink-182's Enema of the State.

What was released in 2011?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bb/Blink-182_-_Neighborhoods_cover.jpg/220px-Blink-182_-_Neighborhoods_cover.jpg ;)


I suppose these are all meant for 2011 as well, then:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Blink-182_-_Buddha_re-release_cover.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Blink-182_-_Cheshire_Cat_cover.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Blink-182_-_Dude_Ranch_cover.jpg

Yes, even the song "Dammit," which was a big radio hit in early '98.  We wouldn't have bothered listening to "After Midnight" in 2011 if "Dammit" had never come out.

This, however, ain't nearly of the same caliber as everything above:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Blink-182_-_Dogs_Eating_Dogs_cover.jpg

How about some KoRn?

Issues came out in 1999. Huh, what came out in 2011?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/Korn_Path_of_Totality.jpg/220px-Korn_Path_of_Totality.jpg


All of these also led us to 2011:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Korn-Korn.jpghttp://loudwire.com/files/2014/01/Life-is-Peachy.jpghttp://loudwire.com/files/2015/08/618XpMB6XrL._SY300_.jpghttp://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/album_review/0858b1a0e78ea45035699a00ae9181ae34a6470a.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/616VBY3GMlL._SY300_.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Korn_-_See_You_on_the_Other_Side.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61IRrinv9IL._SY300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/713PvoKjw2L._SX355_.jpg

However, leave this insignificant piece of has-been rubbish out of the discussion, since it's not in the same vein as KoRn's older work:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Paradigm-shift-e1374855234732.jpg


Ah, yes, I see it. It's 2000's culture, the spirit of 1999. coming full circle. If you don't believe me it's probably because you read Wikipedia. The 2000's are 2000 to 2009 and when Jimmy says jump, I jump.

Even in 2009, the spirit of '99 was still alive and well.

It's weird because his older posts say things like "Coming from a guy who flashes back to 1991 everyday" and "1991 is my favorite year". Why'd he change his mind? One of his major points is that he was there to experience the early 90's and that's where his knowledge comes from but when I asked him why his older posts say "1990-1992 are extensions of 1989" he told me "That's when I didn't properly understand the early 90s" He's always had the weird 1990 theory but he's only recently dropped the co-existing "extension of 1989" theory. Makes no sense.


The only difference between 1989 and 1990-1991 is that the latter two years were already heading for 1999, whereas the spirit of 1978 was still relevant in 1989.  Although actually, I can't remember whether the spirit of '78 was finito by 1990 or if stores everywhere were totally flooded with Star Wars and Garfield merchandise during that time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 12:11 am


I suppose these are all meant for 2011 as well, then:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Blink-182_-_Buddha_re-release_cover.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Blink-182_-_Cheshire_Cat_cover.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Blink-182_-_Dude_Ranch_cover.jpg

Yes, even the song "Dammit," which was a big radio hit in early '98.  We wouldn't have bothered listening to "After Midnight" in 2011 if "Dammit" had never come out.

This, however, ain't nearly of the same caliber as everything above:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Blink-182_-_Dogs_Eating_Dogs_cover.jpg


If I told him about Dammit, he would say "Jordan, the 2000's began in 1999 as that's when Transformers went off the shelves in favor of Pokemon cards and dial-up internet. In 1998, the turtles were on our TV screen. That is not the case for 1999. Our creator works in many ways and it is up to him to decide where we go" He likes to brag about being there so much yet I was actually there when stuff like Dammit was being released. He won't have it, though. He probably knows more about Pop Punk than a guy who saw pre-Enema blink like me.

Dogs Eating Dogs? 8-P Neighborhoods was pretty bad, too. Let's forget about both of those.


All of these also led us to 2011:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Korn-Korn.jpghttp://loudwire.com/files/2014/01/Life-is-Peachy.jpghttp://loudwire.com/files/2015/08/618XpMB6XrL._SY300_.jpghttp://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/album_review/0858b1a0e78ea45035699a00ae9181ae34a6470a.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/616VBY3GMlL._SY300_.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Korn_-_See_You_on_the_Other_Side.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61IRrinv9IL._SY300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/713PvoKjw2L._SX355_.jpg

However, leave this insignificant piece of has-been rubbish out of the discussion, since it's not in the same vein as KoRn's older work:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Paradigm-shift-e1374855234732.jpg


Hmmm... You know what this says to me!? 1994 is the beginning of the 2000's! It's so clear as that's when Buddha and Korn came out! Oh, how could I have not seen it before! The roots of 2011 were there all along! I bet The Early 90s Guy is gonna have to re-think his whole stance now. Ooooorr, he think of more excuses. We'll have to wait and see.


The only difference between 1989 and 1990-1991 is that the latter two years were already heading for 1999, whereas the spirit of 1978 was still relevant in 1989.  Although actually, I can't remember whether the spirit of '78 was finito by 1990 or if stores everywhere were totally flooded with Star Wars and Garfield merchandise during that time.


Remember, the 70's vibe of the 80's lasted through 1989 but was dead in 1990 as the clock hit midnight on New Years day.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/17/16 at 12:48 am

Hmmm... You know what this says to me!? 1994 is the beginning of the 2000's! It's so clear as that's when Buddha and Korn came out! Oh, how could I have not seen it before! The roots of 2011 were there all along! I bet The Early 90s Guy is gonna have to re-think his whole stance now. Ooooorr, he think of more excuses. We'll have to wait and see.

KoRn's self-titled debut and blink-182's Buddha may have been the first full-length releases by groups that would eventually lead us to 2011, but it wasn't until 1999 that KoRnmania and blinkmania truly took off.  Never mind the fact that "Blind" is a mid-90s (intended for the late 90s) metal classic and Life is Peachy went to #3 on the Billboard 200 in 1996, or that "Dammit" was such an airplay hit in early 1998, it was only by 1999 that everyone started having revelations about 2011 when they listened to those groups.

Remember, the 70's vibe of the 80's lasted through 1989 but was dead in 1990 as the clock hit midnight on New Years day.


Yes, however stuff that was popular in 1978 was still being sold in stores in 1990:

http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2edxa0m201qabnrh.jpg

http://www.allaboutprops.com/images/Telephones/Garfield%20Telephone_gal.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fe/9b/23/fe9b2376f8e7b306d3bc90edf1a3a749.jpg

Star Wars and Garfield may have been introduced in the 1970s, but they were intended for the 80s, and therefore brought us to 1990, by which point the spirit of '78 stopped being relevant and society began heading for 1999 as things introduced from 1978-1990 now existed from day 1 of a new decade before stuff intended for the 2000s began to overtake those things intended for 1990 or coexisted with them.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 2:58 am


KoRn's self-titled debut and blink-182's Buddha may have been the first full-length releases by groups that would eventually lead us to 2011, but it wasn't until 1999 that KoRnmania and blinkmania truly took off.  Never mind the fact that "Blind" is a mid-90s (intended for the late 90s) metal classic and Life is Peachy went to #3 on the Billboard 200 in 1996, or that "Dammit" was such an airplay hit in early 1998, it was only by 1999 that everyone started having revelations about 2011 when they listened to those groups.


Yep, this all checks out. Of course, those things don't matter. It's not like bands in 1998 already had the Y2K era sounds and styles, either. Big iconic tours from 1998 like the Pee Pee Poo Poo or Family Values aren't important. They just carried the spirit of 90 unlike their 1999-onward tours and albums. We were heading towards 2011 when Enema of the State and Issues came out. The Early 90s Guy, he knows his music and his scenes and I bet a man with his knowledge would sure agree.


Yes, however stuff that was popular in 1978 was still being sold in stores in 1990:

http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2edxa0m201qabnrh.jpg

http://www.allaboutprops.com/images/Telephones/Garfield%20Telephone_gal.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fe/9b/23/fe9b2376f8e7b306d3bc90edf1a3a749.jpg

Star Wars and Garfield may have been introduced in the 1970s, but they were intended for the 80s, and therefore brought us to 1990, by which point the spirit of '78 stopped being relevant and society began heading for 1999 as things introduced from 1978-1990 now existed from day 1 of a new decade before stuff intended for the 2000s began to overtake those things intended for 1990 or coexisted with them.


Yes, this is correct. Stuff that started in 1978 was intended for the 80's, which in themselves are only a transition to get to 1990 therefore there is no real 80's culture only culture that is intended to get us to 1990 which brought us things like "Best of the 80's" books which did not appear anywhere between 1978 and 1989. Transformers. They were not on shelves from January 1st, 1978 to December 31st, 1989 but they were on shelves from January 1st, 1990 to September 25th at 8:30:55 PM, 1999 (the cultural and historical beginning of the next century) before being replaced by Pokemon and Enema of the State, American Pie; incoming 2010's culture which will bring us to 2011. Some mistake 80's occurrences such as Reign in Blood or Peace Sells as 80's culture but they're wrong. The Clash of the Titans tour took place in 1990. Surprise, surprise. ;)

Everything after 1992 sucks. The spirit of 90 may have existed until September 25th, 8:30:55 PM (the historical and cultural start of the next century) but originality was lost in 1993. There have been no cultural changes ever since. The Early 90s Guy explains it better than anyone:

I don't know why everyone else in the world appears to like '93-'99 so much. Like 80s fan say, "The true 90s are overrated". 1993 WAS NOT EARLY 90S. YOU WEREN'T THERE. I CAN TELL BECAUSE YOU SAID IT LOOKS LIKE THE EARLY 90s TO YOU. 1993 IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE MID 90S.  1993 WAS THE YEAR OF GANGSTA RAP AND GRUNGE. I dislike that year will all of my hate. >:(

Pre '93
http://www.westwoodvalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Vanilla-Ice-To-The-Extreme.jpg


Post '93
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_y_tcBPfFUyE/TH-_SpnEURI/AAAAAAAAAeE/VC2kUXaJ0iY/s1600/61MBcUwrUfL._SL600_.jpg


I know what I'm talking about.


See? He knows what he's talking about. Of course, he is the Early 90s Guy after all. Why wouldn't he know what he's talking about?

Remember...

https://getbent57.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/1988leofront.jpg

TURTLES ARE BETTER!


1999 may be the historical beginnings of the next century but if you wanna lump 1993 to now into that era, you sure can!

I lump everything from 1993 to now as the start of the 21st Century.  8-P


Oh, and some solid proof that Millennials are useless.


I'm not the only one who has ever called Millennials a useless generation.

Have a look for yourself:

https://mobile.twitter.com/elizsimins/status/255313606311280640

http://m.topix.com/forum/city/washington-dc/T6GUHGRHVRM1TK825

http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/memo-to-millennials-you-suck

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/419761.page

http://www.d-rant.com/millennials-are-scum/


You still never answered my question. What have Millennials contributed to society so far? Do you know?


Also, being The Early 90s Guy (of course) he sees things through a different lens than the rest of us...

I'm sorry, I did not know you meant Disney flicks from the 90s decade only.

I don't see things that way. I would have said "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin" were all great Bush 1 Disney flicks. Being an early 90s fan, I don't see things as 80s or 90s like the rest of the world does. As you know, everyone is different.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 5:51 pm


Nope! They're 100% real! Check his post history, it's all there. The only reason I can't properly quote is because the topics are locked. Unlocked topics are fine.

This one's a gem. He always talks about the Turtles yet he says...

He's right, though. Looking at Kelly Kapowski was fun but I think he's lying. He seems like the type to much rather "gaze" at mutant trutles or giant transforming robots.

This one is also another gem:

If you're a Millennial, you're probably a pansy according to this Early 90s guy!

He loves to say that, too. "According to this Early 90s Guy everything after 1993 sucks!"

Case in point...
It's like being the "Early 90s Guy" makes you the definitive source on the early 90s. ;D I love it. Dude's f*ckin' hilarious! I could read these posts all day. I'm gonna look for the ones where he yells about Jesus and how there have been no cultural changes since 1993.


Woah. I'm warming up to Early90sGuy if he likes the 2010s. But as the 2010s guy, I'll fight anyone who doesn't agree that the 2010s didn't start somewhere in 2009  >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/17/16 at 6:34 pm


Woah. I'm warming up to Early90sGuy if he likes the 2010s. But as the 2010s guy, I'll fight anyone who doesn't agree that the 2010s didn't start somewhere in 2009  >:(


Nope! 2010s started in 2001.

Don't agree then come fight me, bro! 8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 6:40 pm


Nope! 2010s started in 2001.

Don't agree then come fight me, bro! 8)


2001?? I can see 2005 or 2006 but not 2001. In 2001 Friends was airing among other 2000s shows.

The 2000s started in 1994 with the release of Dookie and airing of Friends. The 2010s started in 2005 with the airing of The Office, a staple 2010s show.

edit: lol, this thread feels kind of mean ;D

I finished listening to Lit's A Place In the Sun. Great album. I'm listening to Dashboard Confessionals next.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/17/16 at 6:41 pm


2001?? I can see 2005 or 2006 but not 2001. In 2001 Friends was airing among other 2000s shows.

The 2000s started in 1994 with the release of Dookie and airing of Friends. The 2010s started in 2005 with the airing of The Office, a staple 2010s show.


It all makes sense now!  :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/17/16 at 7:12 pm


2001?? I can see 2005 or 2006 but not 2001. In 2001 Friends was airing among other 2000s shows.

The 2000s started in 1994 with the release of Dookie and airing of Friends. The 2010s started in 2005 with the airing of The Office, a staple 2010s show.

edit: lol, this thread feels kind of mean ;D

I finished listening to Lit's A Place In the Sun. Great album. I'm listening to Dashboard Confessionals next.


The 2000s basically started in 1997, since that was when South Park and King of the Hill premiered. Both of those shows were pretty influential during the 2000s, so yeah. As for the 2010s, they probably started in 2008. I don't really find The Office to be definitive during the 2010s, since it ended around 2013.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 9:59 pm


Woah. I'm warming up to Early90sGuy if he likes the 2010s. But as the 2010s guy, I'll fight anyone who doesn't agree that the 2010s didn't start somewhere in 2009  >:(


The Early 90s Guy is the funniest thing on the internet. Every time he posts, I always get in a good mood. I sincerely hope he's not a troll. Honestly, he better be real or I'm gonna be pretty pissed off.


Nope! 2010s started in 2001.

Don't agree then come fight me, bro! 8)


Does this imply that 2001 is not like 1998-2000?!?!?!? Do I have to yell at you in all caps and tell you how you're too young to comprehend the era like I do? >:(

2001?? I can see 2005 or 2006 but not 2001. In 2001 Friends was airing among other 2000s shows.

The 2000s started in 1994 with the release of Dookie and airing of Friends. The 2010s started in 2005 with the airing of The Office, a staple 2010s show.

edit: lol, this thread feels kind of mean ;D

I finished listening to Lit's A Place In the Sun. Great album. I'm listening to Dashboard Confessionals next.


Dude, early 00's Emo started in 1995 with Jawbreaker's Dear You. Seriously listen to it! The entire album sounds like something from 2001 or 2002!!! It's just like Bleed American! But yeah, the 2000's started in 1994 and the 2010's started in 2004 (because everything after 2003 sux :D)

This thread is a tribute to The Early 90s Guy. 

Dashboard Confessionals are pretty rad stuff. Once again, though, Dear You has an untitled acoustic track which sounds just like a Dashboard song from 2001 or 2002.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/17/16 at 10:16 pm


Woah. I'm warming up to Early90sGuy if he likes the 2010s. But as the 2010s guy, I'll fight anyone who doesn't agree that the 2010s didn't start somewhere in 2009  >:(


Well, if TheEarly90sGuy like the 2010s, then he could've gone off to another website with modern pop cultural references.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 10:25 pm


Well, if TheEarly90sGuy like the 2010s, then he could've gone off to another website with modern pop cultural references.


We can have nostalgia for last year. I'm nostalgic for early 2015 when I read the Martian. That's a good book.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 10:25 pm


Well, if TheEarly90sGuy like the 2010s, then he could've gone off to another website with modern pop cultural references.


How can he like the 2010's if he hates "pansy Millennials born after 1986"??

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/17/16 at 10:29 pm


How can he like the 2010's if he hates "pansy Millennials born after 1986"??


It was just a rumor that Slowpoke made. Of course, TheEarly90sGuy doesn't like the 2010s. He doesn't like anything after 1992 for some reason.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 10:31 pm


It was just a rumor that Slowpoke made. Of course, TheEarly90sGuy doesn't like the 2010s. He doesn't like anything after 1992 for some reason.


Of course. How could the Early 90s Guy like the 2010s? He is The Early 90s Guy after all. He only likes the late 80s and early 90s. He says all originality was lost in 1993 and there have been no cultural changes since despite the 90's beginning in 1990.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 10:34 pm


It was just a rumor that Slowpoke made. Of course, TheEarly90sGuy doesn't like the 2010s. He doesn't like anything after 1992 for some reason.


He said in that post Jordan quoted that he liked 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013? Well he said it was innovative and that "it was best part of the decade", not sure if he liked it. That makes him cool in my book.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/17/16 at 10:37 pm


Of course. How could the Early 90s Guy like the 2010s? He is The Early 90s Guy after all. He only likes the late 80s and early 90s. He says all originality was lost in 1993 and there have been no cultural changes since despite the 90's beginning in 1990.


Yet he still makes a big deal about 1999 being the year of POKéMANIA! THE DEBUT OF FAMILY GUY  AFTER THE SUPERBOWL!  THE BACKSTREET BOYS' MILLENNIUM!  STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE BEING THE #1 GROSSING FILM OF THE YEAR!, as well as 2011 being a huge deal because of FUNKO POP DOLLS!  ANGRY BIRDS MANIA!.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 10:39 pm


He said in that post Jordan quoted that he liked 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013? Well he said it was innovative and that "it was best part of the decade", not sure if he liked it. That makes him cool in my book.


This one?



Being The Early 90s Guy, I'll never love any year after 1992 the way I do '90-'92. I thought late '10 was the best part of the decade thus far. As 2010 was slowly morphing into 2011, some of the most memorable pop culture of the decade was churned out. Think about it, the fall of 2010 gave us "Instagram, Keep Calm and Carry On, Adventure Time, Lego Minifigures in toy stores, The Walking Dead, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and YOLO frozen yogurt". It was the most innovative part of the 2010s decade. 2011 will always be the true start of the 2010s decade, so 2010 was in the middle of that period starting in 2008 and the beginning of the 10s.

    The only year that competes with late 2010 is 2013. '13 starts off as one large continuation to 2012. The last episodes to the first and best season of Scandal were shown. America was still ranting and raving about "The Hobbit". They were doing the Gangham style dance to "Call Me Maybe" on the dance floor. Mothers everywhere were going, "How cute is that Honey Boo Boo"?  Sadly, George Zimmerman got away with murdering young Trayvon Martin. Most importantly, "Orange Is the New Black" premiered on Netflix. 2012 was indeed explosive with "50 Shades of Grey", but almost everyone I know is doing their crazy eyes impression right now.



Yet he still makes a big deal about 1999 being the year of POKéMANIA! THE DEBUT OF FAMILY GUY  AFTER THE SUPERBOWL!  THE BACKSTREET BOYS' MILLENNIUM!  STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE BEING THE #1 GROSSING FILM OF THE YEAR!, as well as 2011 being a huge deal because of FUNKO POP DOLLS!  ANGRY BIRDS MANIA!.


Hahaha! STARS WARS EPISODE I WAS NOT THE TOP GROSSING FILM IN 1998! THAT WAS 1999! I gotta find the post where he yells about Jesus.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 10:42 pm

Yeah that one 8)

He considers 2010 to be the best part of the decade, and 2010 is the 2000s to him, so that means it's better than 1999-2002. If even Early90sGuy likes 2010-13, that truly means it was the greatest era 8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 10:44 pm


Yeah that one 8)

He considers 2010 to be the best part of the decade, and 2010 is the 2000s to him, so that means it's better than 1999-2002. If even Early90sGuy likes 2010-13, that truly means it was the greatest era 8)


Does this mean Early 90s guy wears slutty V-Necks with vicks, too?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 10:49 pm

This one's a gem:


The early 90s were TOO GREAT to be grouped with those bland Clinton years. Yes, they may be a part of the 90s decade, but George HW Bush was president. Those times were VERY different from '93 to '99. Yes, I do always bring up pop culture from the early 90s because the period is underrated. Sadly, those years don't get enough recognition from a good portion of people. I am an early 90s fan for life! Hypercolor was the greatest idea ever. I had so much fun touching my friends shirt to see my hand imprint in February of 1992. I'll never forget. I refuse to get over the early 90s because you told me so. Who made you the queen of this message board? Just because your name is Katana Queen doesn't mean you go bossing people around. You can simply ignore my messages if you can't stand them. I "rag on people's childhoods" because I was of age to see the real 90s for what they were. The last thing America needs is a generation with a very poor taste in pop culture. You seem to forget one day a millennial will be President. Also, I'll be seated in a nursing home next to a millennial.  I have cousins like everyone else, so yes, I was exposed to the toys and cartoons of the 1990s.

GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE, HONEY! The first amendment grants me the freedom to free speech. All of my talk about the early 90s is getting old TO YOU! Get over yourself, princess! The world doesn't revolve around you!


If they're so different, then why'd the 90's start in 1990?

He's so time specific, too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 10:50 pm


Does this mean Early 90s guy wears slutty V-Necks with vicks, too?


He sounds like a cool dude. You guys are just h8as  8)


This one's a gem:

If they're so different, then why'd the 90's start in 1990?

He's so time specific, too.

Maybe something February related happened that day, like idk the Superbowl or Valentine's Day.

Benefit of the doubt man. Benefit of the doubt.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 10:52 pm


He sounds like a cool dude. You guys are just h8as  8)


I don't hate him. I think he's hilarious.


Maybe something February related happened that day, like idk the Superbowl or Valentine's Day.

Benefit of the doubt man. Benefit of the doubt.


Valentines day? Dude's more into his "slammin'" TMNT figures with the realistic skin that made him feel "sweet" than Kelly from Saved by the Bell. I don't want to know what his "valentines day" consists of.


I'll assume that by "whole decade", you meant 1993-2002.


Even he knows...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 10:57 pm


I don't hate him. I think he's hilarious.

Valentines day? Dude's more into his "slammin'" TMNT figures with the realistic skin that made him feel "sweet" than Kelly from Saved by the Bell. I don't want to know what his "valentines day" consists of.

Even he knows...


The important thing is he likes the early 10s at least. He's part of the cool kids skinny jeans club. You're not invited :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 11:07 pm


The important thing is he likes the early 10s at least. He's part of the cool kids skinny jeans club. You're not invited :P


I'm sure he's thrilled to be in a club full of post-1986 Millennials. ::)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 11:14 pm

Oh look!


The 2010s are a lot blander than the 2000s ever were. I noticed that also. In the 00s, at least you could mock Paris Hilton, solve the mysteries to ABC's Lost, look at people's Myspace updated pages and root for Harry, Hermione and Ron at the movies. I bet we'll look back and see the 2000s decade as the one that fits in most with the years of the 20th Century.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 11:16 pm


I'm sure he's thrilled to be in a club full of post-1986 Millennials. ::)


Hey we talk about early 90s stuff like Jurassic Park too. You just jelly (pardon my late 2000s slang).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 11:18 pm


Hey we talk about early 90s stuff like Jurassic Park too. You just jelly (pardon my late 2000s slang).


But he hates Jurassic Park! That movie came out in 1993, a year he dislikes with all of his hate! >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 11:28 pm


Oh look!


https://media.giphy.com/media/6gLyE15StAs3C/giphy.gif

Lame! Back to the 2000s Nickelback fanclub with him  8-P


But he hates Jurassic Park! That movie came out in 1993, a year he dislikes with all of his hate! >:(


thatsthejoke :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 11:30 pm


https://media.giphy.com/media/6gLyE15StAs3C/giphy.gif

Lame! Back to the 2000s Nickelback fanclub with him  8-P


2000's being 1999 to 2011? ;)

2011 is when the blandness began.


thatsthejoke :P


I got it. :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/18/16 at 9:21 am


Yeah that one 8)

He considers 2010 to be the best part of the decade, and 2010 is the 2000s to him, so that means it's better than 1999-2002. If even Early90sGuy likes 2010-13, that truly means it was the greatest era 8)


Early90sGuy likes the early 2010s? Well then, I guess he's hiding a dirty little secret from us.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/18/16 at 10:47 am


Early90sGuy likes the early 2010s? Well then, I guess he's hiding a dirty little secret from us.


He thinks the 2010's are a lot blander than the 2000's.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/18/16 at 10:54 am


He thinks the 2010's are a lot blander than the 2000's.


K

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/18/16 at 11:10 pm


He thinks the 2010's are a lot blander than the 2000's.



It's the moment of truth time! Do you like the 2010s more or the 2000s?



I would have to go with the 2010s, because we are living in one of the most technologically progressive times in history.


He
has spoken. You lose. Cya l8r loser

http://www.dentonisd.org/cms/lib/tx21000245/centricity/Domain/3012/Dancing_L.gif

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/18/16 at 11:19 pm



He
has spoken. You lose. Cya l8r loser

http://www.dentonisd.org/cms/lib/tx21000245/centricity/Domain/3012/Dancing_L.gif


I noticed! >:(

Early 90s Guy probably means the 2003/2004-2009 part of the decade as 2000-2002 aren't 00's years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/19/16 at 4:54 am

Having studied the The Neurotic Misadventures of TheEarly90sGuy, I'm gonna sum up all the decades as such:

The 1970s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0STL8NRVlQc

http://www.stardomeplanetarium.co.uk/images/apollo-16.jpg?764

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/Creedence_Clearwater_Revival_Chronicle.jpg

http://s.ecrater.com/stores/110247/53e5c94f12f61_110247b.jpg

The 1980s:

http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/staying-alive-1983/large_pZS3K6My4UDwVzwTkEpAo0JXjZt.jpg

http://lh5.ggpht.com/-3J8kd98REPY/UTPDlVlsefI/AAAAAAAAYQ0/iM69EURLOck/s9000/halloween-5-the-revenge-of-michael-myers-116190l.jpg

https://cdn.discogs.com/AOrB4H8CQviVDt760Ll7Lw_wpQs=/fit-in/600x594/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(96)/discogs-images/R-1903627-1455420605-5485.jpeg.jpg

https://catalogue.presto.com.au/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/Grease%202%20960x1440.jpg?itok=9yYh_u7o

The 1990s:

http://retro.recordsale.de/cdpix/t/the_real_milli_vanilli-too_late_(true_love)(hansa).jpg

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/filmguide/images/a/a0/Home_alone_three.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130816185321

http://www.nitrocats.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nextmutation-team.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41V3B5M0ZDL.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QN9MTF5YL.jpg

The 2000s:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/Unbreakable_cover.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/The_book_of_love.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61IRrinv9IL.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll206/V-F-H/boxart/ppg_10th.png

http://images.betanews.com/screenshots/1003279686-1.jpg

http://streamd.hitparade.ch/cdimages/vengaboys-forever_as_one_s_1.jpg

http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0000/499/MI0000499217.jpg?partner=allrovi.com

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/The_Simpsons_-_The_11th_Season.jpg

http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mkwPmJ5YeTg1TZPcn1UKB2w.jpg

The 2010s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xz6upJcC5c

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/The_Smurfs_2_poster.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVCzdpagXOQ

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Planes_FilmPoster.jpeg

Remember, it's always the first year that ultimately defines an entire decade.  I hope that helps! :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Philip Eno on 02/19/16 at 4:57 am

^ The Abbey Road Album by The Beatles was released in September 1969.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/19/16 at 4:58 am


^ The Abbey Road Album by The Beatles was released in September 1969.


It was issued on cassette, however, in 1972, and again in 1976.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/19/16 at 7:15 am


Having studied the The Neurotic Misadventures of TheEarly90sGuy, I'm gonna sum up all the decades as such:

The 1970s:


The 1990s:



The 2000s:



The 2010s:


Remember, it's always the first year that ultimately defines an entire decade.  I hope that helps! :)


Thank you for this comprehensive study on the cultural decades, Infinity. It's about time the people really took the time to learn about how these things work. I hate when people mistake 80's occurrences for the 80's as they are meant for 1990.

This is an alternative way to do this, too. As we both know, there have been absolutely no culture changes whatsoever since 1993. A PlayStation was in stores in 1995 and a PlayStation is in stores today. It's the same thing. We can use photos from 1993 to define the 2010's. It's just that simple!

Defining 2010's culture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/44_Bill_Clinton_3x4.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TCU1UlugWcw/TUoyVGMoW8I/AAAAAAAAAAM/6l0wh7W_n14/s1600/tagtea-whoomp.jpg

http://img.gamefaqs.net/box/5/0/9/21509_front.jpg

http://s7.computerhistory.org/is/image/CHM/102712896-03-01?$re-inline-artifact$

http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bowser.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/In_Utero_(Nirvana)_album_cover.jpg

http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0001/678/MI0001678723.jpg?partner=allrovi.com

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Philip Eno on 02/19/16 at 7:20 am


It was issued on cassette, however, in 1972, and again in 1976.
O0

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/19/16 at 8:00 am

Oh my god look at the huge differences between December 31, 1992 11:59 PM and January 1, 1993 at midnight. Everything changed the second that New Year's ball dropped in Time Square. As a result, everything then on became the things that define today. Look at how dramatic the change was between 1992 and 1993 even just by watching the New Year's Countdown. Suddenly everything turned from old school to new school and I'm so pissed about it!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/19/16 at 8:11 am

Simpsons couch gags were never the same after 1993...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/19/16 at 8:51 am


Simpsons couch gags were never the same after 1993...


I think they were good until Season 25. However, the best couch gags came from the 90s seasons.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/19/16 at 9:20 am

Culinary meals never tasted the same after '93. After all, he is the world's greatest expert on the early 90's, so why wouldn't he not know how food tasted like before and after 1993?

Pre-1993: Meals tasted delicious.
Post-1993: Meals sucked.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/19/16 at 9:21 am


Culinary meals never tasted the same after '93. After all, he is the world's greatest expert on the early 90's, so why wouldn't he not know how food tasted like before and after 1993?

Pre-1993: Meals tasted delicious.
Post-1993: Meals sucked.


Was there a law that needed meals to be more healthy in '93?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/19/16 at 9:24 am


I think they were good until Season 25. However, the best couch gags came from the 90s seasons.


My favorite couch gag was the evolution couch gag as seen on "Homerazzi" (Season 18 Episode 16).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/19/16 at 9:29 am


Was there a law that needed meals to be more healthy in '93?


Not really, but there was the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994, which addressed concerns brought up by the 1993 SNDA study concerning levels of fat, sodium and carbohydrates in meals that the then-current school lunch program served to students. But yeah, you could say there was at least a major idea to make meals more healthy in 1993. "Got Milk" was even introduced in '93.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/19/16 at 9:55 am


Not really, but there was the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994, which addressed concerns brought up by the 1993 SNDA study concerning levels of fat, sodium and carbohydrates in meals that the then-current school lunch program served to students. But yeah, you could say there was at least a major idea to make meals more healthy in 1993. "Got Milk" was even introduced in '93.


So because of the HFHAA, school programs give students sh*tty food?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/19/16 at 9:59 am


So because of the HFHAA, school programs give students sh*tty food?


Partially, I would say yes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/19/16 at 10:47 am


Partially, I would say yes.


Wow. I guess that sucks since I was born after 1993. But at least their food isn't inedible.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/19/16 at 11:16 am


Wow. I guess that sucks since I was born after 1993. But at least their food isn't inedible.


He was joking lol. It still makes a lot of sense though, I do like terrible food.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/19/16 at 12:26 pm

This has nothing to do with the generations, or maybe it does. :( I notice that kids today go home from school later in the afternoon. Why is that? When I was in school we stayed until 2:15 pm. I know times have changed, but is there a specific reason?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/19/16 at 12:33 pm


This has nothing to do with the generations, or maybe it does. :( I notice that kids today go home from school later in the afternoon. Why is that? When I was in school we stayed until 2:15 pm. I know times have changed, but is there a specific reason?


Hmm, I think I used to get off at 3:00 pm. When did yours start? Mine used to start at 8:40 am I think, and every other Tuesday we had a short day, so it would start at 10:00 am. Perfect for catching up on sleep.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/19/16 at 12:40 pm


This has nothing to do with the generations, or maybe it does. :( I notice that kids today go home from school later in the afternoon. Why is that? When I was in school we stayed until 2:15 pm. I know times have changed, but is there a specific reason?


Here in Georgia, when I was in elementary school. You had to be in the building by 8:00am or you were tardy (late slip). In order from Kindergarten to 5th graders, everybody were dismissed out of the building from 2:30pm-2:45pm. Middle school and high school had to be in their classrooms by 8:20am or you were late, and were all dismissed from the building at 3:30pm.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/19/16 at 12:47 pm


Here in Georgia, when I was in elementary school. You had to be in the building by 8:00am or you were tardy (late slip). In order from Kindergarten to 5th graders, everybody were dismissed out of the building from 2:30pm-2:45pm. Middle school and high school had to be in their classrooms by 8:20am or you were late, and were all dismissed from the building at 3:30pm.


8:20 to 3:30?? Wow that is oppressively long. And you had homework on top of that?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/19/16 at 12:49 pm


Here in Georgia, when I was in elementary school. You had to be in the building by 8:00am or you were tardy (late slip). In order from Kindergarten to 5th graders, everybody were dismissed out of the building from 2:30pm-2:45pm. Middle school and high school had to be in their classrooms by 8:20am or you were late, and were all dismissed from the building at 3:30pm.



Hmm, I think I used to get off at 3:00 pm. When did yours start? Mine used to start at 8:40 am I think, and every other Tuesday we had a short day, so it would start at 10:00 am. Perfect for catching up on sleep.



Well, in grade school we would begin at 8:00 in the morning, and leave to go home at 2:15 in the afternoon.

My nephews are 11 and 8 years old. They go home from school at 3:30-4:00 in the afternoon.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/19/16 at 12:58 pm


8:20 to 3:30?? Wow that is oppressively long. And you had homework on top of that?


Yep, and not just homework either, but extracurricular activities, like clubs or sports. I ran cross country all 4 years while I had many other friends who played football, basketball, baseball, or tennis, so many of us wouldn't get home until around 6pm-8pm in the evening.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/19/16 at 1:04 pm


Yep, and not just homework either, but extracurricular activities, like clubs or sports. I ran cross country all 4 years while I had many other friends who played football, basketball, baseball, or tennis, so many of us wouldn't get home until around 6pm-8pm in the evening.


Get back home at 8 and still have to do homework?  :o Did the kids in your school have jobs? For some reason I thought the American school system would be easier.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/19/16 at 1:19 pm


Get back home at 8 and still have to do homework?  :o Did the kids in your school have jobs? For some reason I thought the American school system would be easier.


Well since Cross Country is during the Fall each year and my practice ended at 5:30pm, I was able to get home at 6pm during the Fall, and 4pm during the Spring. However, when it came to football or basketball players their practices lasted longer so they wouldn't be home until 7pm or 8pm, and you'd think homework at night is tough. I'm taking evening classes this semester in college, all of those last from 5:30 or 6pm to 8pm. So I have to drive back home 45 minutes to an hour on the dark road each night (Mon-Thur), and it's more of a pain in the ass when it's raining heavy at night.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/19/16 at 1:26 pm



Well, in grade school we would begin at 8:00 in the morning, and leave to go home at 2:15 in the afternoon.

My nephews are 11 and 8 years old. They go home from school at 3:30-4:00 in the afternoon.

I often began my school days, particularly in elementary school, sometime between 8 and 8:30, and would be out by about 2:30.
In 3rd grade, I went to a school that was in session from 8:30 to 2:30, and on some days I wouldn't go home until at least 3:30 or 4; they had an "extended day care" system, which was good.

In middle school, the day would run from 8 to 3, with a "passing bell" ringing at 7:55; this would give kids time to get to their homerooms and get situated. Thursdays would be "shortened" days, lasting from 8 to 2; I'm not sure why, but I'm sure there was some explanation for that.

In high school, we began at 7:45 and ended at 2:25.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/19/16 at 1:53 pm


8:20 to 3:30?? Wow that is oppressively long. And you had homework on top of that?


Well, it's basically school. My school surprisingly gets out at 2:18 pm. Sure, it seems unusual but it was their dismissal time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/19/16 at 3:51 pm


Well, it's basically school. My school surprisingly gets out at 2:18 pm. Sure, it seems unusual but it was their dismissal time.

On a similar note, when I was in middle school, there was a "minimum day" bell schedule that would end the school day at 12:34, so that each class period would be exactly 34 minutes long (i.e., no variations on length of period).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/19/16 at 4:33 pm


This has nothing to do with the generations, or maybe it does. :( I notice that kids today go home from school later in the afternoon. Why is that? When I was in school we stayed until 2:15 pm. I know times have changed, but is there a specific reason?


Well, not every school doesn't have the same 8:00 am to 2:15 pm schedule. So, why does this have to do with generations, if yet all schools from all generations have different schedules?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/19/16 at 11:33 pm


Well, not every school doesn't have the same 8:00 am to 2:15 pm schedule. So, why does this have to do with generations, if yet all schools from all generations have different schedules?

Perhaps the standard school hours have changed over the years?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/20/16 at 12:45 am


This has nothing to do with the generations, or maybe it does. :( I notice that kids today go home from school later in the afternoon. Why is that? When I was in school we stayed until 2:15 pm. I know times have changed, but is there a specific reason?


I didn't even know things changed. When I was in school we stayed until 2:30pm. But on Wednsdays we'd stay and leave at 1:30pm. Wednsdays were the days where we'd leave earlier. I wonder what it's like nowadays.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/20/16 at 7:50 am


I didn't even know things changed. When I was in school we stayed until 2:30pm. But on Wednsdays we'd stay and leave at 1:30pm. Wednsdays were the days where we'd leave earlier. I wonder what it's like nowadays.


When I was in school, the day started out early and ended at around 230-3pm, that was 25 years ago.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/20/16 at 2:52 pm


When I was in school, the day started out early and ended at around 230-3pm, that was 25 years ago.

Only my junior high days ended at 3pm, as I mentioned in my earlier post. In elementary school, the standard dismissal time was approximately 2:30, give or take a few minutes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/21/16 at 2:45 pm


When I was in school, the day started out early and ended at around 2:30-3pm, that was 25 years ago.


I don't think my school ever ended at 3pm. Although in Middle School I do remember it ending at 4PM. Boy was I devestated to realize that by the time I'd get out of Middle School most of the afternoon would've been gone.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/21/16 at 3:10 pm


I don't think my school ever ended at 3pm. Although in Middle School I do remember it ending at 4PM. Boy was I devestated to realize that by the time I'd get out of Middle School most of the afternoon would've been gone.


Well Toon, that was my school time it ended between 245-3pm, I'd catch the bus to go home afterwards right across the street.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/21/16 at 4:43 pm


I don't think my school ever ended at 3pm. Although in Middle School I do remember it ending at 4PM. Boy was I devestated to realize that by the time I'd get out of Middle School most of the afternoon would've been gone.

4pm?!! Wow! :o I can't imagine any school hours going past 3. (Unless it's college, which has classes at all hours of the day.)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/23/16 at 6:27 pm

Damn, some of you got out of at 3 or 3:30pm? That's the latest I've seen except for college. For me, elementary began at 7:50am (basically 8am) and ended at 2:15pm. MS and HS began at 7:30am and finished at 2:10 and 2:14 respectively. Oh and I checked the sites of my old schools and they changed the times a little to get out. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/23/16 at 6:33 pm

Hey You guys should check some of these old articles and studies regarding this generation. They pretty much cover everything.

http://theechoboom.com/2010/09/dateage-range-of-baby-boomers-generation-x-and-generation-y/

http://theechoboom.com/2010/09/the-echo-boom-statistics/

https://oied.ncsu.edu/diversity/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Managing-Across-Generations.pdf

http://www.go2hr.ca/articles/understanding-echo-boom-generation

https://certi.mst.edu/media/administrative/certi/documents/Article-Millennial-Behaviors.pdf

http://www.esds1.pt/site/images/stories/isacosta/secondary_pages/10%C2%BA_block1/Generations%20Chart.pdf

http://www.meaningfulcareers.com/defining-a-generation/

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2004/06/art2full.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/web/98039.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/12/us/a-generation-s-heritage-after-the-boom-a-boomlet.html?pagewanted=all

http://articles.philly.com/1998-03-08/news/25743950_1_echo-boomers-generation-baby-boom

http://nursing.advanceweb.com/Article/move-over-gen-X---here-comes-gen-Y.aspx

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/facing-facts/here-comes-millennial-generation

http://www.youthpastor.com/lessons/index.cfm/Article-Generations_From_Silent_through_Boomer_and_X_to_Millenial_124.htm#.Vszb-PkrK70

http://www.thelearningcafe.net/downloads/InstantExpert-Millennials.pdf

http://www.newsweek.com/now-its-time-generation-next-162866

http://www.fortlauderdale.gov/Home/S...ument?id=11205

http://www.people-press.org/2007/01/09/a-portrait-of-generation-next/

http://www.mcosa.net/SPF-SIG%20TRAIN...eet_080606.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M...ials/Archive_2

http://www.fdu.edu/newspubs/magazine/05ws/generations.htm

http://ndn.org/paper/2007/progressive-politics-millennial-generation

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.gfoa-mo...ials_2-4-1.pdf

http://www.newsweek.com/now-its-time...on-next-162866

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/26/16 at 12:52 pm

This is unrelated, but anyone notice the word "Millennial" has kind of gotten screwed up definition-wise? Like, it's been reduced to a very loosely-defined slang term.

On the forums I go to, they usually have threads beginning with "Millennials will never know ": "Millennials will never know Ask Jeeves", "Millennials will never know arcades", "Millennials will never know Misty from Pokemon", etc.

Apparently, 20-somethings often say they're "Gen Y, not Millennials", and also think "Millennial" means "born in 2000+ (aka the millennium)" because it's simpler and "makes more sense". Maybe it does?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/26/16 at 5:24 pm


This is unrelated, but anyone notice the word "Millennial" has kind of gotten screwed up definition-wise? Like, it's been reduced to a very loosely-defined slang term.

On the forums I go to, they usually have threads beginning with "Millennials will never know ": "Millennials will never know Ask Jeeves", "Millennials will never know arcades", "Millennials will never know Misty from Pokemon", etc.

Apparently, 20-somethings often say they're "Gen Y, not Millennials", and also think "Millennial" means "born in 2000+ (aka the millennium)" because it's simpler and "makes more sense". Maybe it does?


That is a very good point, hence the confusion. However I have met plenty of 20 somethings, ironically mostly late 20 somethings (so mid-late 80's babies), who consider themselves 'Millennials'. Very rarely these days do I hear 'Generation Y' regardless if its on the internet or real life

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/26/16 at 5:30 pm


Damn, some of you got out of at 3 or 3:30pm? That's the latest I've seen except for college. For me, elementary began at 7:50am (basically 8am) and ended at 2:15pm. MS and HS began at 7:30am and finished at 2:10 and 2:14 respectively. Oh and I checked the sites of my old schools and they changed the times a little to get out.

Yep, some of my schools have changed their bell schedules over the years as well; I've checked some of their websites just for curiosity's sake. Sometimes they'll have it end at an oddball time (and by that, I mean that the minutes are NOT divisible by 5) which can be kinda screwy. I once knew someone who went to a school that ended at 2:59 (not 3:00), no joke.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/26/16 at 5:50 pm


Yep, some of my schools have changed their bell schedules over the years as well; I've checked some of their websites just for curiosity's sake. Sometimes they'll have it end at an oddball time (and by that, I mean that the minutes are NOT divisible by 5) which can be kinda screwy. I once knew someone who went to a school that ended at 2:59 (not 3:00), no joke.


Let me explain how my school schedule was for my high school, I'll do the best I can explaining this since I'm 2 years removed from high school. 

Throughout my 4 years of high school we did block scheduling. Everybody had 4 classes a day throughout the semester. You'd get one set of 4 classes for Fall semester and the other set of 4 for Spring semester. The average time a class lasted was an hour and 30 min.

1st Block: 8:30am - 10:05am

2nd Block: 10:15am - 11:45am

3rd Block: 11:55am - 1:50pm

4th Block: 2:00pm - 3:30pm


So basically throughout the 7 & early 8am hour buses would be picking up kids from home and dropping them off to school. If you're a car rider or drive yourself then it's obviously your own time. Before the 1st bell at 8:20am everybody had wait in the courtyard, cafeteria, or gym. The freshmen or 9th graders had a separate building and cafeteria to wait in though. So once the 1st bell rings at 8:20am everybody gets settled in class. Then the 2nd bell rings at 8:30am which is the tardy bell.

1st block, 2nd block, and 4th block remains the way it is. School starts at 8:30pm while it ends at 3:30pm. However, as you can see you're guessing that lunches occur throughout 3rd block, which is correct. Everybody either had 1st lunch, 2nd lunch, 3rd lunch, or 4th lunch. Again, the freshmen had their own cafeteria in their own building. While the sophomores-seniors sat in the main cafeteria in the main high school building, the senior cafe for seniors next to the main cafeteria was optional. Everybody either had 1st lunch (11:45am-12:15pm), 2nd lunch (12:20pm-12:45pm), 3rd lunch (12:50pm-1:15pm), or 4th lunch (1:20pm-1:50pm). Throughout my freshman and sophomore years of high school, the lunch you had depended on which hallway you were on, and throughout my junior and senior years of high school it changed and it was based off the subject you had.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/26/16 at 11:42 pm


Preschool, it was 8:30-12:00 Pre K, it was 8:30-2:00.From kindergarten to 8th grade I entered school at 8:30 and left at 3:00!  ::) 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 12:11 am


This is unrelated, but anyone notice the word "Millennial" has kind of gotten screwed up definition-wise? Like, it's been reduced to a very loosely-defined slang term.

On the forums I go to, they usually have threads beginning with "Millennials will never know ": "Millennials will never know Ask Jeeves", "Millennials will never know arcades", "Millennials will never know Misty from Pokemon", etc.

Apparently, 20-somethings often say they're "Gen Y, not Millennials", and also think "Millennial" means "born in 2000+ (aka the millennium)" because it's simpler and "makes more sense". Maybe it does?


What they don't understand is that both names are mean the same generation; however, those aren't the only two. There are Echo Boomers, Digital Natives/Pioneers and Generation 2000/Y2K (one of the old names as well).

As for the 2000+ generation, they're considered the Plurals, Founders, and/or Homeland.


Let me explain how my school schedule was for my high school, I'll do the best I can explaining this since I'm 2 years removed from high school. 

Throughout my 4 years of high school we did block scheduling. Everybody had 4 classes a day throughout the semester. You'd get one set of 4 classes for Fall semester and the other set of 4 for Spring semester. The average time a class lasted was an hour and 30 min.

1st Block: 8:30am - 10:05am

2nd Block: 10:15am - 11:45am

3rd Block: 11:55am - 1:50pm

4th Block: 2:00pm - 3:30pm


So basically throughout the 7 & early 8am hour buses would be picking up kids from home and dropping them off to school. If you're a car rider or drive yourself then it's obviously your own time. Before the 1st bell at 8:20am everybody had wait in the courtyard, cafeteria, or gym. The freshmen or 9th graders had a separate building and cafeteria to wait in though. So once the 1st bell rings at 8:20am everybody gets settled in class. Then the 2nd bell rings at 8:30am which is the tardy bell.

1st block, 2nd block, and 4th block remains the way it is. School starts at 8:30pm while it ends at 3:30pm. However, as you can see you're guessing that lunches occur throughout 3rd block, which is correct. Everybody either had 1st lunch, 2nd lunch, 3rd lunch, or 4th lunch. Again, the freshmen had their own cafeteria in their own building. While the sophomores-seniors sat in the main cafeteria in the main high school building, the senior cafe for seniors next to the main cafeteria was optional. Everybody either had 1st lunch (11:45am-12:15pm), 2nd lunch (12:20pm-12:45pm), 3rd lunch (12:50pm-1:15pm), or 4th lunch (1:20pm-1:50pm). Throughout my freshman and sophomore years of high school, the lunch you had depended on which hallway you were on, and throughout my junior and senior years of high school it changed and it was based off the subject you had.


I had a block schedule as well in MS. Here's what the times were like:

Block 1: 7:30 to 8:58

Block 2: 9:03 to 10:31

Lunch: 10:36 to 11:01

Block 3: 11:06 to 12:38

Block 4: 12:43 to 2:10


Yep, some of my schools have changed their bell schedules over the years as well; I've checked some of their websites just for curiosity's sake. Sometimes they'll have it end at an oddball time (and by that, I mean that the minutes are NOT divisible by 5) which can be kinda screwy. I once knew someone who went to a school that ended at 2:59 (not 3:00), no joke.
It can be. During at my HS, all the periods were not divisible by 5 at all (all ended with an even number)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/28/16 at 5:45 pm


I had a block schedule as well in MS. Here's what the times were like:

Block 1: 7:30 to 8:58

Block 2: 9:03 to 10:31

Lunch: 10:36 to 11:01

Block 3: 11:06 to 12:38

Block 4: 12:43 to 2:10

I wonder if they do that in parts of the U.S. other than California.



It can be. During at my HS, all the periods were not divisible by 5 at all (all ended with an even number)

Same with me. On a regular day, all six periods were each 53 minutes long, with a 6-minute "passing" in between (that is, time to get from one class to another), a 12-minute homeroom period, and a half-hour lunch period.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/28/16 at 6:30 pm

That sounds terribly confusing. :o And a half hour lunch period is awful as well. We had a whole hour! Perfect for eating a lunch and then playing sports/socializing, not necessarily in that order.

My house was only 10 minutes away too. Sometimes I'd go home for lunch, and me and my friends would play Smash Bros. or Mario Kart on the Wii. Great times! ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 7:15 pm


That sounds terribly confusing. :o And a half hour lunch period is awful as well. We had a whole hour! Perfect for eating a lunch and then playing sports/socializing, not necessarily in that order.

My house was only 10 minutes away too. Sometimes I'd go home for lunch, and me and my friends would play Smash Bros. or Mario Kart on the Wii. Great times! ;D


You already saw how my high school schedule was on the previous page. With how highly populated my high school was, if you had 2nd or 3rd lunch and you had to wait in the back of the line the whole time, by the time you get to the table you'd only have about 15 minutes left to eat  :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 7:22 pm

BTW people, my middle school had 7 periods.

Everybody had to take Literature, Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies which were 5 periods and the rest of the classes were called "connections" which were either P.E., Music, Art, Keyboarding, Spanish, Band, or Chorus depending on your schedule.

The 6th graders had 1st-5th period as their subjects and 6th-7th period as their connections

The 7th graders had 1st-2nd period as their subjects, 3rd-4th period as their connections, and 5th-7th period as the rest of their subjects.

The 8th graders had 1st-2nd period as their connections, and 3rd-7th period as their subjects.

Unlike ALL of my high school blocks being 1 hour & 30 minutes on average (block scheduling), my middle school periods for the subjects lasted for only 1 hour (60 min) and our connections lasted for 45 minutes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 7:33 pm


You already saw how my high school schedule was on the previous page. With how highly populated my high school was, if you had 2nd or 3rd lunch and you had to wait in the back of the line the whole time, by the time you get to the table you'd only have about 15 minutes left to eat  :o


Damn that sounds terrible >:(

My school also had 4 lunch periods. The first lunch was around 10AM (Extremely Early) which was the least crowded, 2nd at 11AM & the most crowded, 3rd at 12PM & the second most crowded, and finally 4th at 1PM which was the 2nd least crowded. Now in my years of high school every year I got the 2nd lunch period, except for sophomore year in which I got the 3rd lunch period. While the 1st & 4th were nice because the cafeteria was much clearer thus getting lunch and eating quicker, barely anybody had those periods so it was relatively boring to sit and eat during those periods...

Also my school lunch periods were about 45 minutes, so slightly longer then yours. My school however had a traditional 8 class schedule with classes about 45 minutes each.

School began at 8:30, although busses would drop students off as early as 7:45, and that time was the free time for students to do whatever they so pleased. They had served breakfast in the cafe during my freshman & sophomore years, but they stopped doing that in my Junior year, but you could still go to the cafe and chill with your friends or what not. Minus pep rallys, the time spent talking to people inbetween classes, and or after school events, this was the one time of day where socialization was generally accepted.

School ended at around 3PM and most students (unless in clubs or sports teams) were out of the campus by 3:10 ;D

While High School had its ups and downs there were some enjoyable memories (especially my Junior & Senior years). After school most students would walk to the nearby downtown area and go to various restaurants, cafes, or convenience stores; the stoners would go smoke cigarettes in the dark alleyways ;D, and the 'dude bros' would duke it out every friday at the nearby park ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 7:41 pm


Damn that sounds terrible >:(

My school also had 4 lunch periods. The first lunch was around 10AM (Extremely Early) which was the least crowded, 2nd at 11AM & the most crowded, 3rd at 12PM & the second most crowded, and finally 4th at 1PM which was the 2nd least crowded. Now in my years of high school every year I got the 2nd lunch period, except for sophomore year in which I got the 3rd lunch period. While the 1st & 4th were nice because the cafeteria was much clearer thus getting lunch and eating quicker, barely anybody had those periods so it was relatively boring to sit and eat during those periods...


My high school changed a lot throughout the 4 years I was there. Lunches being crowded depended on the amount of students taking the classes each semester. Like I said before, throughout the 1st half of my high school years the lunches you had depended on the hallways you were on, but throughout the 2nd half of high school the lunches you had depended on the subject. Our high school was so large that there was even a separate building for the freshmen too including a separate 9th grade cafeteria and library. The main cafeteria in the main high school building was for sophomores through seniors, yet it was still hard to find a seat. All of the main academic freshmen classes like 9th Grade Lit or Math I were in the freshmen building. However, the electives like Art, Computer Apps, or Junior ROTC everybody would be together in the main building, but the freshmen had to go around the main building to get to any of their classes, they weren't allowed to be in the main hallway along with the upperclassmen. As time went on throughout high school they got more and more strict about 9th graders being around upperclassmen. The rules weren't that strict back in my freshmen year, there were many times when I was a freshmen and I went in the main hallway sometimes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 7:43 pm


My high school changed a lot throughout the 4 years I was there. Lunches being crowded depended on the amount of students taking the classes each semester. Like I said before, throughout the 1st half of my high school years the lunches you had depended on the hallways you were on, but throughout the 2nd half of high school the lunches you had depended on the subject. Our high school was so large that there was even a separate building for the freshmen too including a separate 9th grade cafeteria and library. The main cafeteria in the main high school building was for sophomores through seniors, yet it was still hard to find a seat. All of the main academic freshmen classes like 9th Grade Lit or Math I were in the freshmen building. However, the electives like Art, Computer Apps, or Junior ROTC everybody would be together in the main building, but the freshmen had to go around the main building to get to any of their classes, they weren't allowed to be in the main hallway along with the upperclassmen. As time went on throughout high school they got more and more strict about 9th graders being around upperclassmen. The rules weren't that strict back in my freshmen year, there were many times when I was a freshmen and I went in the main hallway sometimes.


Damn that sounds intense! How many students were in your high school?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/28/16 at 8:28 pm


Damn that sounds intense! How many students were in your high school?


I can't count from the top of my head, but over the last 5 years about 600 people on average graduate from my high school each year. Freshman year of high school there were about 900 or 1,000 people in my grade. There's a lot of dropouts and transfers that occur of course.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/28/16 at 9:16 pm


I can't count from the top of my head, but over the last 5 years about 600 people on average graduate from my high school each year. Freshman year of high school there were about 900 or 1,000 people in my grade. There's a lot of dropouts and transfers that occur of course.


DAMN :o

My school was tiny in comparison. Only a little over 2,000 students and about 500 people per grade. However something I noticed was that the population decreased over the years. For instance I remember the seniors during the 2010-2011 school year had the one of the biggest classes being at around 700! While by the time my class were Seniors our population was around 500. The freshman during the 2013-2014 school year were only about 400!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/28/16 at 9:26 pm


I can't count from the top of my head, but over the last 5 years about 600 people on average graduate from my high school each year. Freshman year of high school there were about 900 or 1,000 people in my grade. There's a lot of dropouts and transfers that occur of course.


I pretty much had the same amount of kids in my high school. It was about 4,000 students total, if I may recall.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ralfy on 02/28/16 at 9:35 pm

Here's one list to consider:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#List_of_generations

There are roughly 20-year periods for each generation, with some taking almost 25. Here are the periods rounded to 5s and 0s:

Lost: 1880-1900
Greatest: 1900-1925 (25 yrs.)
Silent: 1925-1945
Boomers: 1945-1965
Gen X: 1965-1980 (15 yrs.)
Gen Y: 1980-2000

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/29/16 at 4:07 pm


You already saw how my high school schedule was on the previous page. With how highly populated my high school was, if you had 2nd or 3rd lunch and you had to wait in the back of the line the whole time, by the time you get to the table you'd only have about 15 minutes left to eat  :o


Errr.... bring your own lunch? ;D That still sucks dude. What seems to suck is you might have different lunch times than your friends? That would be a huge bummer. There seems to be no time for socializing except in class. What I also seem to notice is your guys' classes start really early! At 7:30-8AM over here it can still be pitch black outside!

My schedule was (rougly, going by memory)

First Period: 08:40AM - 10:10AM
Second Period: 10:20AM - 11:35AM
Lunch: 11:35AM - 12:25PM
Third Period: 12:25PM - 01:40PM
Fourth Period: 01:50PM - 03:05PM

First period was longer than the rest, if I remember correctly, because in Toronto we get free breakfast and the teacher would give us time to eat it at the end of class.

In my last year of high school, I actually had a spare because you only need to take 6 courses (3 per semester) the last year. It was second period usually, and me and my friends would have enough time to go the mall and hang out there for 1-1.5 hours before coming back to school. Once, we cut third period because we had a substitute. We took the subway downtown and went ice-skating! Ahh, the memories. I would kill for that kind of free time again. :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/29/16 at 8:13 pm


Errr.... bring your own lunch? ;D That still sucks dude. What seems to suck is you might have different lunch times than your friends? That would be a huge bummer. There seems to be no time for socializing except in class. What I also seem to notice is your guys' classes start really early! At 7:30-8AM over here it can still be pitch black outside!

My schedule was (rougly, going by memory)

First Period: 08:40AM - 10:10AM
Second Period: 10:20AM - 11:35AM
Lunch: 11:35AM - 12:25PM
Third Period: 12:25PM - 01:40PM
Fourth Period: 01:50PM - 03:05PM

First period was longer than the rest, if I remember correctly, because in Toronto we get free breakfast and the teacher would give us time to eat it at the end of class.

In my last year of high school, I actually had a spare because you only need to take 6 courses (3 per semester) the last year. It was second period usually, and me and my friends would have enough time to go the mall and hang out there for 1-1.5 hours before coming back to school. Once, we cut third period because we had a substitute. We took the subway downtown and went ice-skating! Ahh, the memories. I would kill for that kind of free time again. :D


Senior year of high school you could do all those type of stuff, especially if you got all your work done your freshman-junior years and have an easy schedule. Not to mention the ability to drive wherever you want by that time. I only had 2 classes per semester throughout senior year, unlike freshman-junior when I had 4 each semester.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/29/16 at 11:48 pm


BTW people, my middle school had 7 periods.

Everybody had to take Literature, Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies which were 5 periods and the rest of the classes were called "connections" which were either P.E., Music, Art, Keyboarding, Spanish, Band, or Chorus depending on your schedule.

The 6th graders had 1st-5th period as their subjects and 6th-7th period as their connections

The 7th graders had 1st-2nd period as their subjects, 3rd-4th period as their connections, and 5th-7th period as the rest of their subjects.

The 8th graders had 1st-2nd period as their connections, and 3rd-7th period as their subjects.

Unlike ALL of my high school blocks being 1 hour & 30 minutes on average (block scheduling), my middle school periods for the subjects lasted for only 1 hour (60 min) and our connections lasted for 45 minutes.


Yeah, some were like that.

In my secondary schools, however, all the students were on the same bell schedule.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/01/16 at 4:54 pm


I wonder if they do that in parts of the U.S. other than California.

Same with me. On a regular day, all six periods were each 53 minutes long, with a 6-minute "passing" in between (that is, time to get from one class to another), a 12-minute homeroom period, and a half-hour lunch period.
I think they do. Looking at Slowpoke, Mqg and OF's HS schedules, it seems they had one at their schools as well.

Me too!

-------------------------------------------

Oh and everyone, for my MS, we also had A-day and B-day schedules, so we had 5 classes (PE and electives would switch depending on the letter day; others had A-day for PE and B-day for electives and vice versa) and we would have them every two days. Here's what it was like.

Monday: A day
Tuesday: B-day
Wednesday: A day
Thursday: B day
Friday: A day


Then the next week, it would switch beginning and ending with B-day. Moreover, the PE and elective classes depended on your grade and class period. Here's a chart for when I was there.

6th and 8th Grade:

8th Grade:

Block 2: PE/Elective

7th Grade:

Block 3: PE/Elective

6th Grade:

Block 4: PE/Elective


7th Grade:


7th Grade:

Block 2: PE/Elective

8th Grade:

Block 3: PE/Elective

6th Grade:

Block 4: PE/Elective



Last, depending on the semester, you would have science for the 1st one and history for the 2nd.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/01/16 at 7:05 pm

So so so so confusing.  :( You don't walk into the wrong classes some days?  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/02/16 at 1:09 pm


So so so so confusing.  :( You don't walk into the wrong classes some days?  ;D
Nope. We all knew which letter days we had those classes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 11:16 am

I see a lot of high school teens (born 1998-2001?) play 3DS on the bus. Now if you're a grown ass adult or a teenager that plays GB/GBA/DS/3DS in public, I don't care what you say, you're the same generation as me.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/03/16 at 3:15 pm


I see a lot of high school teens (born 1998-2001?) play 3DS on the bus. Now if you're a grown ass adult or a teenager that plays GB/GBA/DS/3DS in public, I don't care what you say, you're the same generation as me.  ;D


So what you're saying is that teens today are the same, as Gen Yers?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 3:18 pm


So what you're saying is that teens today are the same, as Gen Yers?


Either I'm Gen Z or they are Gen Y  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/03/16 at 3:23 pm


Either I'm Gen Z or they are Gen Y  ;D


ok... :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 3:27 pm


I see a lot of high school teens (born 1998-2001?) play 3DS on the bus. Now if you're a grown ass adult or a teenager that plays GB/GBA/DS/3DS in public, I don't care what you say, you're the same generation as me.  ;D

???

I play my Gameboy in public sometimes but I have better taste than you. I also have the X connection. ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 3:29 pm


???

I play my Gameboy in public sometimes but I have better taste than you. I also have the X connection. ;)


What the hell are you playing on Gameboy in 2016?

Also Gen X would be arcade kids, I think.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 03/03/16 at 3:30 pm


???

I play my Gameboy in public sometimes but I have better taste than you. I also have the X connection. ;)


Would that be the old Gameboy?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 3:30 pm


Would that be the old Gameboy?


Either that or the Gameboy Color.


What the hell are you playing on Gameboy in 2016?


Why not? >:(


Also Gen X would be arcade kids, I think.


I went to arcades when I was a kid.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 3:33 pm


Either that or the Gameboy Color.

Why not? >:(

I went to arcades when I was a kid.


What actual entertaining games are you playing on it?  ;D

Everyone goes to the arcade as kids. You need to go as an adult to be a real Xer.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 3:37 pm


What actual entertaining games are you playing on it?  ;D

Everyone goes to the arcade as kids. You need to go as an adult to be a real Xer.


Tetris, Super Mario Land and Donkey Kong.

I went to an arcade 5 years ago with my wife when we went to Niagara Falls. To my surprise, I found a Crazy Taxi machine so I played on it a bit. It was rad to hear some good ol' Bad Religion and Offspring.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 3:57 pm


Tetris, Super Mario Land and Donkey Kong.

I went to an arcade 5 years ago with my wife when we went to Niagara Falls. To my surprise, I found a Crazy Taxi machine so I played on it a bit. It was rad to hear some good ol' Bad Religion and Offspring.


Dude, you can get those games for free on your phone and not have to replace those AA batteries every time. Even flip phones have Tetris. Now I know you're a hipster for sure. Gameboy in 2016??  ;D

You went to Niagara Falls? Canadian side or American side?  :D

edit: Whenever I take my sisters to the arcade I always get a few games of Mario Kart in.  :D There is also this Simpson's racing game but it only involves the steering wheel.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 4:03 pm


Dude, you can get those games for free on your phone and not have to replace those AA batteries every time. Even flip phones have Tetris. Now I know you're a hipster for sure. Gameboy in 2016??  ;D

You went to Niagara Falls? Canadian side or American side?  :D


Ok, I will just join you and play Hipster Hacky Sack on my iPhone. I'm no hipster! Sorry, but there's no Indie Rock in this discman! Only GC, blink n Sum n MxPx rockin' my room. Gameboys are for kings.

I went to both but I think it was the Canadian side that had the arcade. It was called "Midway" or "Midtown" something.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 4:09 pm


Ok, I will just join you and play Hipster Hacky Sack on my iPhone. I'm no hipster! Sorry, but there's no Indie Rock in this discman! Only GC, blink n Sum n MxPx rockin' my room. Gameboys are for kings.

I went to both but I think it was the Canadian side that had the arcade. It was called "Midway" or "Midtown" something.


Darn, if you stayed exclusively on the Canadian side I would have asked you if you visited other cities in the Niagara Region. My hometown has the best waterfalls (over 100 of them!), Niagara Falls ain't a thing.  :P

I've never heard of this Midway place, but it looks like it's for kids lol. You ain't an Xer :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 03/03/16 at 4:12 pm


Either that or the Gameboy Color.

Why not? >:(

I went to arcades when I was a kid.


So did I.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 4:13 pm


Darn, if you stayed exclusively on the Canadian side I would have asked you if you visited other cities in the Niagara Region. My hometown has the best waterfalls (over 100 of them!), Niagara Falls ain't a thing.  :P

I've never heard of this Midway place, but it looks like it's for kids lol. You ain't an Xer :P


Nah, we went quickly bad to good ol' America as soon as I could!

Yeah but it was the only arcade I could find. I didn't play any other games except for Crazy Taxi (which is a lot of fun). I still have that X connection. ;)


So did I.


Arcades are pretty rad, eh Howard? When was the last time you've been to one?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 03/03/16 at 4:23 pm


Nah, we went quickly bad to good ol' America as soon as I could!

Yeah but it was the only arcade I could find. I didn't play any other games except for Crazy Taxi (which is a lot of fun). I still have that X connection. ;)

Arcades are pretty rad, eh Howard? When was the last time you've been to one?


A little over 20 years ago.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 4:24 pm


A little over 20 years ago.


That's quite a long time! Good arcades are hard to find these days. Not like in the 80's when everything was better.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 4:30 pm


That's quite a long time! Good arcades are hard to find these days. Not like in the 80's when everything was better.


Arcade gaming died in 1983 before you could walk you filthy millennial :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 4:38 pm


Arcade gaming died in 1983 before you could walk you filthy millennial :P


I was already walking and talking in the womb.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 4:52 pm


I was already walking and talking in the womb.


Sounds painful for your mother.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 5:03 pm


Sounds painful for your mother.


Not as painful as my brother. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 03/03/16 at 5:33 pm


So what you're saying is that teens today are the same, as Gen Yers?


I'd say that 1998-2001 (today's high schoolers) are cusps. 1995-1997 already appear to firmly be Gen Y/Millennial birthyears from a 2016 point of view.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 6:18 pm


Not as painful as my brother. ;D


Your mom has had it rough. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 6:22 pm

I saw the "Damn Daniel!" meme and I don't understand this Vine/Snapchat stuff or why it's so funny.

PSA to today's high schoolers: Get off Snapchat and get on 3DS. 8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/03/16 at 6:25 pm


I'd say that 1998-2001 (today's high schoolers) are cusps. 1995-1997 already appear to firmly be Gen Y/Millennial birthyears from a 2016 point of view.

So you're also saying that 1993-1997ers are firm Late Y? Cause I consider 1991 and 1992ers on the cusp of core and late.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 6:27 pm


Sounds painful for your mother.


I and my sister were the "good" kids! ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 6:34 pm


I and my sister were the "good" kids! ;D

LOL Impossible ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 6:46 pm


So you're also saying that 1993-1997ers are firm Late Y? Cause I consider 1991 and 1992ers on the cusp of core and late.


I think it should just be divided into early and late. Having core late cusp and cusping earlier lately is just too confusing LOL.

1946 - 1953 : Early Boomers / Gen Vietnam
1954 - 1964: Late Boomers / Gen Jones
1965 - 1972: Early Xers / Baby Busters
1973 - 1980: Late Xers / Generation PC
1981 - 1987: Early Millennials / Generation Internet
1988 - ????: Late Millennials / Digital Natives

imo.  :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 6:47 pm


LOL Impossible ;D


You'd think so but when my brother was a teenager he used to sneak out all the time, swear a lot (actually, everyone in my house swore a lot), get drunk and smoke a lot of pot (when my mother caught him he was in big, big trouble). Him and his friends got into a lot of trouble at school 'cause they'd play pranks like putting thumb tacks on their teacher's chair (which is rad). Me? Well, I've only gotten drunk like... I dunno once? And smoked pot, like, twice and hated it so I've never done it again. I never got caught. The worst I used to do was play loud music at 1 AM and skip school. I never had to sneak out because by then my mother would say "ok, fine. Just don't do any drugs" which I didn't. My dad was ok with it but he was always much more relaxed than my mom. I dunno about my sister but I think the worst she'd do was dye her hair and play loud Nu Metal music on our home stereo (during the afternoon but still worse 'cause it's Nu Metal) when there was that Nu Metal boy she liked.


I think it should just be divided into early and late. Having core late cusp and cusping earlier lately is just too confusing LOL.

1946 - 1953 : Early Boomers / Gen Vietnam
1954 - 1964: Late Boomers / Gen Jones
1965 - 1972: Early Xers / Baby Busters
1973 - 1980: Late Xers / Generation PC
1981 - 1987: Early Millennials / Generation Internet
1988 - ????: Late Millennials / Digital Natives

imo.  :P


1987-onward: useless pansy millennials. ;) ;D :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 7:11 pm


You'd think so but when my brother was a teenager he used to sneak out all the time, swear a lot (actually, everyone in my house swore a lot), get drunk and smoke a lot of pot (when my mother caught him he was in big, big trouble). Him and his friends got into a lot of trouble at school 'cause they'd play pranks like putting thumb tacks on their teacher's chair (which is rad). Me? Well, I've only gotten drunk like... I dunno once? And smoked pot, like, twice and hated it so I've never done it again. I never got caught. The worst I used to do was play loud music at 1 AM and skip school. I never had to sneak out because by then my mother would say "ok, fine. Just don't do any drugs" which I didn't. My dad was ok with it but he was always much more relaxed than my mom. I dunno about my sister but I think the worst she'd do was dye her hair and play loud Nu Metal music on our home stereo (during the afternoon but still worse 'cause it's Nu Metal) when there was that Nu Metal boy she liked.

1987-onward: useless pansy millennials. ;) ;D :D


LOL wow grunge really was corrupting the youth. By the time pop-punk and nu-metal came around all the kids became well-behaved. Then emo and scene metal came and we all became angels.  ;D

1973 - 1980 - Late Xers / Generation Furry
1981 - 1987 - Early Millennials / Generation Sonic-Furry
1987 to infinity - Late Millennials / Useless Pansy Millennials

Happy? :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 7:18 pm


LOL wow grunge really was corrupting the youth. By the time pop-punk and nu-metal came around all the kids became well-behaved. Then emo and scene metal came and we all became angels.  ;D

1973 - 1980 - Late Xers / Generation Furry
1981 - 1987 - Early Millennials / Generation Sonic-Furry
1987 to infinity - Late Millennials / Useless Pansy Millennials

Happy? :P


I know, right!? You'd think Nu Metal would be about tuff musclez but those Nu Metal kids were all a bunch of little sweethearts. Pop Punk boys, such as myself, were always referred to as "cute and sweet" by all the girls. Grunge smelled and never showered.

1973-1980 - Late X'ers / Still Rad and no furrie elements to be seen.
1981-1987 - Early Millennials / Also pretty rad. Not useless or pansy-like. No elements of fur.
1987 to infinity - Late Millennials / Useless Pansy Millennials. Not rad and very furry.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 03/03/16 at 7:27 pm

What about this:

1945-1955: Early Boomers (Post WWII Generation)
1956-1964: Late Boomers (Generation Jones)
1965-1972: Early Xers (Baby Busters)
1973-1982: Late Xers (MTV Generation)
1983-1991: Early Millennials (Echo Boomers)
1992-2000: Late Millennials (Digital Natives)
2001-2010: Early Homelanders (iGeneration)
2011-2020: Late Homelanders (#Generation)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 7:33 pm


What about this:

1945-1955: Early Boomers (Post WWII Generation)
1956-1964: Late Boomers (Generation Jones)
1965-1972: Early Xers (Baby Busters)
1973-1982: Late Xers (MTV Generation)
1983-1991: Early Millennials (Echo Boomers)
1992-2000: Late Millennials (Digital Natives)
2001-2010: Early Homelanders (iGeneration)
2011-2020: Late Homelanders (#Generation)


I agree. You could say guys like me (born 1982) are pretty rad so we might as well be X'ers. O0

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 7:34 pm


What about this:

1945-1955: Early Boomers (Post WWII Generation)
1956-1964: Late Boomers (Generation Jones)
1965-1972: Early Xers (Baby Busters)
1973-1982: Late Xers (MTV Generation)
1983-1991: Early Millennials (Echo Boomers)
1992-2000: Late Millennials (Digital Natives)
2001-2010: Early Homelanders (iGeneration)
2011-2020: Late Homelanders (#Generation)


I like it! I can see where you're coming from. Only thing is that MTV Generation would be those born 1965-1972. Those born 1973-1982 would be too young for that in the beginning.

Maybe "Generation Furry" would be a better name for those people, especially since furry births seems to peak in 1982 :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 7:34 pm


I like it! I can see where you're coming from. Only thing is that MTV Generation would be those born 1965-1972. Those born 1973-1982 would be too young for that in the beginning.


I remember MTV from the womb.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 7:36 pm


I remember MTV from the womb.


You weren't even a sperm or egg in August 1981.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 7:38 pm


You weren't even a sperm or egg in August 1981.


But I was in December 1981.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 7:40 pm


But I was in December 1981.


Yeah, MTV had been out for 2 months by then. You're not the OG :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 7:40 pm


Yeah, MTV had been out for 2 months by then. You're not the OG :P


Same year, though. I'm still pretty true OG! 8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 7:43 pm


Same year, though. I'm still pretty true OG! 8)


IMO you at least had to be an egg in August 1981 to be Gen X, so those born May 1982. After that you're a useless pansy Millennial. I notice a huge difference in characteristics between early '82 borns and late '82 borns.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/03/16 at 7:45 pm


What about this:

1945-1955: Early Boomers (Post WWII Generation)
1956-1964: Late Boomers (Generation Jones)
1965-1972: Early Xers (Baby Busters)
1973-1982: Late Xers (MTV Generation)
1983-1991: Early Millennials (Echo Boomers)
1992-2000: Late Millennials (Digital Natives)
2001-2010: Early Homelanders (iGeneration)
2011-2020: Late Homelanders (#Generation)


At least this is where I'm coming from.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 7:45 pm


IMO you at least had to be an egg in August 1981 to be Gen X, so those born May 1982. After that you're a useless pansy Millennial. I notice a huge difference in characteristics between early '82 borns and late '82 borns.


Um, no. You're wrong. Those born January 1st 1983 onward, there's the difference. People born in 1982 are rad like X'ers. Thing is 1983-1986 is fine because they're not useless pansy Millennials. 1987 onward? My god, there is no hope for the future!!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 7:48 pm


Um, no. You're wrong. Those born January 1st 1983 onward, there's the difference. People born in 1982 are rad like X'ers. Thing is 1983-1986 is fine because they're not useless pansy Millennials. 1987 onward? My god, there is no hope for the future!!


No way. Gen Xers were bandits like your brother and responsible for the 90s high crime rates. You on the other hand were an angel to hear you say it. You're totally Gen Y. :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 03/03/16 at 7:52 pm


No way. Gen Xers were bandits like your brother and responsible for the 90s high crime rates. You on the other hand were an angel to hear you say it. You're totally Gen Y. :P


I thought that it was mostly the Boomers that were responsible for a lot of the crime during the late 20th century that lasted from the mid 60's to around 1992/93.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 7:53 pm


No way. Gen Xers were bandits like your brother and responsible for the 90s high crime rates. You on the other hand were an angel to hear you say it. You're totally Gen Y. :P


I was quite a bandit in my youth, too. I don't know if you know this but I got up to a fair share of trouble.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 7:56 pm


I thought that it was mostly the Boomers that were responsible for a lot of the crime during the late 20th century that lasted from the mid 60's to around 1993.


Yeah, it was late 60s to mid-90s. It was highest in 1995 or 1996 or so, then it declined very quickly after that.

http://www.zeigen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/homicide_chart.png

Late '82ers are clearly the Y side of this chart.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 03/03/16 at 7:58 pm


Yeah, it was late 60s to mid-90s. It was highest in 1995 or 1996 or so, then it declined very quickly after that.

http://www.zeigen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/homicide_chart.png

Late '82ers are clearly the Y side of this chart.


I think that 1991 was when it was at its highest, and 1993 was when the crime rates started to slowly diminish.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 7:58 pm


Yeah, it was late 60s to mid-90s. It was highest in 1995 or 1996 or so, then it declined very quickly after that.

http://www.zeigen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/homicide_chart.png

Late '82ers are clearly the Y side of this chart.


I guess those who were around in 1900-1904 are super Millennials. 8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 8:00 pm


I was quite a bandit in my youth, too. I don't know if you know this but I got up to a fair share of trouble.


Stole cookies from the cookie jar?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 8:04 pm


Stole cookies from the cookie jar?


Worse than that! I J-walk. 8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 8:12 pm


Worse than that! I J-walk. 8)


:o You certainly have some X characteristics.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/03/16 at 8:16 pm


Yeah, it was late 60s to mid-90s. It was highest in 1995 or 1996 or so, then it declined very quickly after that.

http://www.zeigen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/homicide_chart.png

Late '82ers are clearly the Y side of this chart.


At least the 2000s had least homicides than those other decades. Jesus christ, how could people find that good?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/03/16 at 8:18 pm


:o You certainly some X characteristics.


Only X'ers jaywalk! ;)


At least the 2000s had least homicides than those other decades. Jesus christ, how could people find that good?


The late 90's also had the least amount of homicides.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/03/16 at 8:19 pm


At least the 2000s had least homicides than those other decades. Jesus christ, how could people find that good?


Well if you think about it, crime rates were actually lowest in 1999. So for most the 2000s we kept hearing about how homicides were trending higher compared to 1999.  ;D Fear sells yo :P

edit: beaten

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/03/16 at 8:21 pm


Well if you think about it, crime rates were actually lowest in 1999. So for most the 2000s we kept hearing about how homicides were trending higher compared to 1999.  ;D Fear sells yo :P

edit: beaten


But at least it wasn't early-mid 90s bad.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 03/04/16 at 7:40 am


That's quite a long time! Good arcades are hard to find these days. Not like in the 80's when everything was better.


I have no interest in arcades anymore.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/04/16 at 12:37 pm


But at least it wasn't early-mid 90s bad.


The 80's weren't too high, either.

Mathematically we can say 80's >> 90's.


I have no interest in arcades anymore.


Me neither. The quality of arcades has just gone down the tubes since the 90's.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/04/16 at 3:26 pm


The 80's weren't too high, either.

Mathematically we can say 80's >> 90's.


It was low during the mid 80s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 03/04/16 at 4:52 pm


The 80's weren't too high, either.

Mathematically we can say 80's >> 90's.

Me neither. The quality of arcades has just gone down the tubes since the 90's.


This is why I own a Playstation 3 and have access to free games on the internet as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/04/16 at 6:02 pm


It was low during the mid 80s.


"Low"

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/04/16 at 6:05 pm


"Low"


???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/04/16 at 6:08 pm


???


8 murders 100,000 is still pretty high compared to the 4.5 we have today.  ;D

1980s are all about societal decadence. Don't fall for Jordan's propaganda.  >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/04/16 at 6:12 pm


8 murders 100,000 is still pretty high compared to the 4.5 we have today.  ;D

1980s are all about societal decadence. Don't fall for Jordan's propaganda.  >:(


kai. I thought the 2000s were lower than the 80s, murder-wise.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 03/04/16 at 7:03 pm


kai. I thought the 2000s were lower than the 80s, murder-wise.

I thought so as well. Well when looking at charts anyways.
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/17/rick_nevin_murder_statistics_safest_year_ever/least%20murder%20ever.png.CROP.rectangle3-large.png

As of the 2010s we may be having one of the lowest eras in terms of murder as the amount declines.  The 1980s is higher. The 1990s also has that spike/peak amounts. By the 2000s the amount drops. And the 2010s is the lowest that we've had in decades.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/04/16 at 7:07 pm

I keep telling everyone that the 2010s are a human golden age. No one believes me even when facts are staring them in the face.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 03/04/16 at 7:12 pm


I keep telling everyone that the 2010s are a human golden age. No one believes me even when facts are staring them in the face.

Always remember the golden mentality, Pokeslow.  "If it's modern then it sucks"

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/04/16 at 7:37 pm


I keep telling everyone that the 2010s are a human golden age. No one believes me even when facts are staring them in the face.


lol. All I see that's good in the 2010s are FX, John Oliver, South Park still being good, and motherf*cking Boardwalk Empire. Political-wise, I'm not interested towards Obama.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/04/16 at 10:34 pm


8 murders 100,000 is still pretty high compared to the 4.5 we have today.  ;D

1980s are all about societal decadence. Don't fall for Jordan's propaganda.  >:(


No they weren't. The 80's were about being rad and who's girlfriend had the biggest hair. Societal Decadence sounds like the name of a Punk band so if you mean "the 80's are about good Punk Rock" then you, my friend, are correct.


Always remember the golden mentality, Pokeslow.  "If it's modern then it sucks"


Always remember this, Toon. No matter how old they get, I will always hate the real 00's (2003-2009) and the 2010's.


I keep telling everyone that the 2010s are a human golden age. No one believes me even when facts are staring them in the face.


I keep telling everyone that 2000, 2001 and 2002 are the last three good years and society collapsed right afterwards. No one believes me even when facts are starting them in the fact. Some people (the cretins) need "warming up" to my "theories."

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/05/16 at 8:46 am


Always remember the golden mentality, Pokeslow.  "If it's modern then it sucks"


If I would have to be nostalgic over this decade, the years would be 2010 and 2011.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/05/16 at 11:08 am


No they weren't. The 80's were about being rad and who's girlfriend had the biggest hair. Societal Decadence sounds like the name of a Punk band so if you mean "the 80's are about good Punk Rock" then you, my friend, are correct.

Always remember this, Toon. No matter how old they get, I will always hate the real 00's (2003-2009) and the 2010's.

I keep telling everyone that 2000, 2001 and 2002 are the last three good years and society collapsed right afterwards. No one believes me even when facts are starting them in the fact. Some people (the cretins) need "warming up" to my "theories."


Damn, I think that's my second good band name.
*Heaven Is On Fire
*Societal Decadence
I should patent and make bank out of these.  8)

Hey your theory might be revolutionary and upend decadeology, so it will definitely take some time to get used to.  Meanwhile my theory (or fact) is rather obvious. :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 2:22 pm


Damn, I think that's my second good band name.
*Heaven Is On Fire
*Societal Decadence
I should patent and make bank out of these.  8)

Hey your theory might be revolutionary and upend decadeology, so it will definitely take some time to get used to.  Meanwhile my theory (or fact) is rather obvious. :P


The first one sounds like a lame hipster indie pop band but the second one sounds super rad.

My facts are revolutionary and should being an end to decadeology (as people will stop arguing when I present clear-cut facts right in front of 'em!) but some people still need "warming up" because they're stubborn and can't accept the facts. I don't understand this. Your theory, on the other hand, makes no sense. Society peaked with Thrash Metal and the NES, not skinny jeans and indie pop.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/05/16 at 5:59 pm


The first one sounds like a lame hipster indie pop band but the second one sounds super rad.

My facts are revolutionary and should being an end to decadeology (as people will stop arguing when I present clear-cut facts right in front of 'em!) but some people still need "warming up" because they're stubborn and can't accept the facts. I don't understand this. Your theory, on the other hand, makes no sense. Society peaked with Thrash Metal and the NES, not skinny jeans and indie pop.


Skinny jeans are the best, hence society peaking in the 2010s.

Super skinny jeans, boots from Crater Rim, the whole club was looking at him

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 9:39 pm


Skinny jeans are the best, hence society peaking in the 2010s.

Super skinny jeans, boots from Crater Rim, the whole club was looking at him


Uhhh... Are those lyrics to a song? I think I've heard that before.

Baggy dickies, converse from the bargin bin the girls throwing themselves at him.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/05/16 at 9:52 pm


Uhhh... Are those lyrics to a song? I think I've heard that before.

Baggy dickies, converse from the bargin bin the girls throwing themselves at him.


Low by T-Pain. You don't know your mid-2000s crunk rap! ;D Apple-bottom jeans, boots with the fur, the whole club was lookin' at her. Your lyrics' syllables are all out of sync :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 9:59 pm


Low by T-Pain. You don't know your mid-2000s crunk rap! ;D Apple-bottom jeans, boots with the fur, the whole club was lookin' at her. Your lyrics' syllables are all out of sync :P


I just looked this up and this doesn't sound like Crunk at all. My lyrics are great! Much better than yours! >:( :P

Super Skinny jeans, a stupid pompadour, the whole club threw sandwiches at him.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/05/16 at 10:17 pm


I just looked this up and this doesn't sound like Crunk at all. My lyrics are great! Much better than yours! >:( :P

Super Skinny jeans, a stupid pompadour, the whole club threw sandwiches at him.


That doesn't even rhyme!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 10:21 pm


That doesn't even rhyme!


Yeah, but it's accurate.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/05/16 at 10:22 pm

Super slutty v-necks, with a super shiny chest, all the girls wanted to get in bed with this :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 10:23 pm


Super slutty v-neck, with a super shiny chest, all the girls wanted to get in bed with this :D


Tony Hawk kick flips, Spiky frost tips, all the girls wanted to take a piece of this.

There. Much better.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/05/16 at 10:38 pm


Tony Hawk kick flips, Spiky frost tips, all the girls wanted to take a piece of this.

There. Much better.
I have a question, did you listen to non-rock genres as well in the 00s? None of them had songs about political standpoints.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 10:43 pm


I have a question, did you listen to non-rock genres as well in the 00s? None of them had songs about political standpoints.


Nah, not really. I didn't like the direction of real 2000's music, in general. I don't mind a bit of political music but it just got too much around then.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/05/16 at 10:48 pm


Nah, not really. I didn't like the direction of real 2000's music, in general. I don't mind a bit of political music but it just got too much around then.
Like what happened?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/05/16 at 10:49 pm


Tony Hawk kick flips, Spiky frost tips, all the girls wanted to take a piece of this.

There. Much better.


Are we having a rap battle?

Pink floral tees, brown leather shoes, all the girls are twerkin' in his room

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 10:55 pm


Like what happened?


Rock music turned into two things: Faux-Emo and Post-Post-Grunge; both of which intersected commonly. Before that you had a lot more variety with Pop Punk, Post-Grunge, real Emo, Post-Hardcore and Nu Metal. There was a lot to choose from. Especially for stuff like Pop Punk, Emo and Post-Hardcore which are three genres I had been listening to since the mid 90's. The early 00's music continued off that sound. I can't relate to Panic At the Disco or later-era Fall Out Boy. Take Pop Punk, for example. It went from high school slackers with squeaky voices who are trying to have a good time and spiky hair to depressed poets who sing like they're in theater plays. Emo and Post-Hardcore got sucked into this black hole of black hair, bangs, MySpace and skinny jeans. Post-Grunge got even worse when it morphed into that Alt. Metal Post-Post Grunge sound (Three Days Grace and later-era Breaking Benjamin for example) which was the "tougher" alternative to faux-Emo.

For Hip Hop: I don't really like much Hip Hop 1997 onward to be honest but the early 00's still had good stuff like "Real Slim Shady" and "Without Me" and even 2004 had "To The 5 Boroughs" which is a really, really good album. I can't stomach Crunk and Ringtone rap and around 2003-2004, that stuff was everywhere.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/05/16 at 11:02 pm


Rock music turned into two things: Faux-Emo and Post-Post-Grunge; both of which intersected commonly. Before that you had a lot more variety with Pop Punk, Post-Grunge, real Emo, Post-Hardcore and Nu Metal. There was a lot to choose from. Especially for stuff like Pop Punk, Emo and Post-Hardcore which are three genres I had been listening to since the mid 90's. The early 00's music continued off that sound. I can't relate to Panic At the Disco or later-era Fall Out Boy. Take Pop Punk, for example. It went from high school slackers with squeaky voices who are trying to have a good time and spiky hair to depressed poets who sing like they're in theater plays. Emo and Post-Hardcore got sucked into this black hole of black hair, bangs, MySpace and skinny jeans. Post-Grunge got even worse when it morphed into that Alt. Metal Post-Post Grunge sound (Three Days Grace and later-era Breaking Benjamin for example) which was the "tougher" alternative to faux-Emo.

For Hip Hop: I don't really like much Hip Hop 1997 onward to be honest but the early 00's still had good stuff like "Real Slim Shady" and "Without Me" and even 2004 had "To The 5 Boroughs" which is a really, really good album. I can't stomach Crunk and Ringtone rap and around 2003-2004, that stuff was everywhere.
and what about R&B and Pop-Rock (Kelly Clarkson, Avril Lavigne etc.)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/05/16 at 11:07 pm


Are we having a rap battle?

Pink floral tees, brown leather shoes, all the girls are twerkin' in his room


It seems to be.

blink-182 shirts, Pro-Skater 2, he's the guy all the ladies wanna do.


and what about R&B and Pop-Rock (Kelly Clarkson, Avril Lavigne etc.)


RnB lost that soulful song as I recall. I prefer the 80's RnB (it was much groovier and funkier) but in the 90's/early 00's I remember hearing more guys who still sang like Usher.

As for Pop-Rock: for male bands, you still had jangly Pop Rock such as The Calling, Matchbox 20 and Something Corporate and for women there seemed to be a more "home grown" Alanis Morissette or a pusedo-blink element to the early 00's (think songs like Complicated or Sk8r Boi off of Avril's Let Go, which was already very dated by 2004). After that, it seemed like the music got really Faux-Emo/Post-Post-Grungy, sexual or Disney-like.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 03/06/16 at 12:36 am


Rock music turned into two things: Faux-Emo and Post-Post-Grunge; both of which intersected commonly. Before that you had a lot more variety with Pop Punk, Post-Grunge, real Emo, Post-Hardcore and Nu Metal. There was a lot to choose from. Especially for stuff like Pop Punk, Emo and Post-Hardcore which are three genres I had been listening to since the mid 90's. The early 00's music continued off that sound. I can't relate to Panic At the Disco or later-era Fall Out Boy. Take Pop Punk, for example. It went from high school slackers with squeaky voices who are trying to have a good time and spiky hair to depressed poets who sing like they're in theater plays. Emo and Post-Hardcore got sucked into this black hole of black hair, bangs, MySpace and skinny jeans. Post-Grunge got even worse when it morphed into that Alt. Metal Post-Post Grunge sound (Three Days Grace and later-era Breaking Benjamin for example) which was the "tougher" alternative to faux-Emo.

For Hip Hop: I don't really like much Hip Hop 1997 onward to be honest but the early 00's still had good stuff like "Real Slim Shady" and "Without Me" and even 2004 had "To The 5 Boroughs" which is a really, really good album. I can't stomach Crunk and Ringtone rap and around 2003-2004, that stuff was everywhere.



RnB lost that soulful song as I recall. I prefer the 80's RnB (it was much groovier and funkier) but in the 90's/early 00's I remember hearing more guys who still sang like Usher.

As for Pop-Rock: for male bands, you still had jangly Pop Rock such as The Calling, Matchbox 20 and Something Corporate and for women there seemed to be a more "home grown" Alanis Morissette or a pusedo-blink element to the early 00's (think songs like Complicated or Sk8r Boi off of Avril's Let Go, which was already very dated by 2004). After that, it seemed like the music got really Faux-Emo/Post-Post-Grungy, sexual or Disney-like.
I can now see why Rock was not popular during throughout the decade as it was less diverse and it was more sad and fake than genuine. If you want to know, I've been listening those bands of the Y2K era for a long time and they definitely had that cheery and exciting atmosphere. By late 2004, I heard those two songs by Green Day and it gave a vibe of hopelessness and whining  ;D. Now I see why I didn't hear any rock songs after that (aside from video games) for the rest of the 00s.

Now for hip hop, I agree those subgenres were absolutely awful; however, there were some rappers not part of those groups and they were decent.

Yeah, that soulful in r&b did dissolve for a few years in the mid '00s (then it came back later). Many songs at that time were up-tempo and not traditionally slow jams (except for some).

That's something I noticed. Ever since HM premiered, almost all the Disney (and even Nickelodeon) stars have been doing Pop-Rock. Other than that, it was for gone for that time period until Paramore (not sure if you consider them pop-rock) came to the scene.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/06/16 at 1:02 am

Rock was popular for the entire 2000s decade though, and even somewhat popular in the year 2010.  ???

Actually 2007 and afterwards, metal was also pretty popular. 2009-10 I'd say pop-rock was on its last legs, we had the 21st Century Breakdown album from Green Day which was still pretty popular. Not sure I heard much popular rock songs after that, unless it's stuff like Imagine Dragons.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/06/16 at 1:06 am


Rock was popular for the entire 2000s decade though, and even somewhat popular in the year 2010.  ???

Actually 2007 and afterwards, metal was also pretty popular.

Yeah Rock was indeed popular, just not as popular as Rap! ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/06/16 at 1:07 am


I can now see why Rock was not popular during throughout the decade as it was less diverse and it was more sad and fake than genuine. If you want to know, I've been listening those bands of the Y2K era for a long time and they definitely had that cheery and exciting atmosphere. By late 2004, I heard those two songs by Green Day and it gave a vibe of hopelessness and whining  ;D. Now I see why I didn't hear any rock songs after that (aside from video games) for the rest of the 00s.


Haha, totally. Back then, Rock was very loud and in-your-face. Pop Punk and Nu Metal were all about how campy they could get. Starting around the time blink came out with their self-titled and by 2004-ish (June is where I'd say it really took off) it all just all got depressive and sad. Sure, before that you had a sad song or two but it was outnumbered by all the loud and in-your-face fast ones. Everything went in this weird direction. Even with Nu Metal, for example: Papa Roach released their "Getting Away With Murder" album in 2004 which totally abandon the Nu Metal sound and go in an Faux-Emo Alt. Metal direction. Breaking Benjamin did the same thing with their 2004 album. Green Day were the biggest disappointment for me. I remember it like yesterday when that album came out. I'd just seen them two years earlier with blink and Jimmy Eat World during the Pop Disaster tour. I didn't know what the hell happened but I was really upset about their image/sound change.


Now for hip hop, I agree those subgenres were absolutely awful; however, there were some rappers not part of those groups and they were decent.


Yeah, for the most part I'm a late 80's rap guy but I see what you mean. I'm not a big fan of him but 50 Cent stayed pretty tolerable during his peak.


Yeah, that soulful in r&b did dissolve for a few years in the mid '00s (then it came back later). Many songs at that time were up-tempo and not traditionally slow jams (except for some).


Yeah! I remember how during that time it focused more on uptempo dancy-like stuff rather than slow soulful like Usher-type songs.


That's something I noticed. Ever since HM premiered, almost all the Disney (and even Nickelodeon) stars have been doing Pop-Rock. Other than that, it was for gone for that time period until Paramore (not sure if you consider them pop-rock) came to the scene.


I dunno much about what Disney was doing but I remember how guys like the Jonas Brothers and Zac Afron were really big and they did the whole pseudo-rock thing and I guess that's also around the time of Hannah Montana. Paramore's really more Faux-Emo like Fall Out Boy or Panic At the Disco are but with a female singer. Not a fan of that stuff at all! ;D


Rock was popular for the entire 2000s decade though, and even somewhat popular in the year 2010.  ???

Actually 2007 and afterwards, metal was also pretty popular.


Not good rock, though... 8-P


Yeah Rock was indeed popular, just not as popular as Rap! ;)


Yeah, the mid 00's was all rap this and rap that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/06/16 at 1:09 am


Yeah Rock was indeed popular, just not as popular as Rap! ;)


Yep, rap dominated the radio 2004-2008.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/06/16 at 1:11 am


Yep, rap dominated the radio 2004-2008.


The real 2000's in a nutshell:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/WingsHaircut.jpg

"Yo, dogg, you lizten 2 rap?"

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d2/46/e8/d246e82ced989555e9f945ff3ec8c354.jpg

"Yeah, of course I lizten 2 rap, dogg. What do u even hav 2 ask?"

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a0/64/d3/a064d32b23871dbe03aa6ab77f09187a.jpg

"Yo, you guys like rap? sheeetttt, I like rap, too. G-G-G-G-G UNIT!"

http://bp2.blogger.com/_XAePxwGya7E/R1z9Rju2lVI/AAAAAAAAAjA/xknVW7bWRuM/s400/mitchel.jpg

"Sup, homies. Wanna play sum fiddy cent bullet proof on my psp?"

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/515V1RBN9VL._SY300_.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/WingsHaircut.jpg

"yo that's soooo G dogg"

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a0/64/d3/a064d32b23871dbe03aa6ab77f09187a.jpg

"Yo I call playin as snoooooooooppp"

http://img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com/78f06c179de4e9973d40ed829e4cf0b7/http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj136/hmfsoccer2495/Teen-men-hairstyle-with-long-ban-3.jpg

"Yo doggz imma get in on diz"

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/06/16 at 1:18 am

That hairstyle was like, mid-2008 to mid-2009 at worst. Quit being a hater :P The picture that XYKid posted in the other thread is way more accurate and way more embarrassing, I don't see why you don't use that one.

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/wigger-15345.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/phrMY7-cBLU/hqdefault.jpg
http://wrestlingrumors.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/John-Cena-Thuganomics.jpg

Pretty much how most dudes dressed in my class 2004-2007. That emo shag was nowhere to be seen lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/06/16 at 1:21 am


That hairstyle was like, mid-2008 to mid-2009 at worst. Quit being a hater :P The picture that XYKid posted in the other thread is way more accurate and way more embarrassing, I don't see why you don't use that one.

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/wigger-15345.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/phrMY7-cBLU/hqdefault.jpg
http://wrestlingrumors.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/John-Cena-Thuganomics.jpg

Pretty much how most dudes dressed in my class 2004-2007. That emo shag was nowhere to be seen lol.


You probably live in some alternate universe as I saw that haircut everywhere in the mid 00's to early 10's. It's not even an "Emo Shag" unless it's dyed black. Which photo are you talking about, anyway?

Kid in the second photo has the "Emo Shag" :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/06/16 at 1:25 am


You probably live in some alternate universe as I saw that haircut everywhere in the mid 00's to early 10's. It's not even an "Emo Shag" unless it's dyed black. Which photo are you talking about, anyway?

Kid in the second photo has the "Emo Shag" :P


Well you're judging it by the stuff you saw at Warped Tour, you're going to see crazy fashion there obviously. ;D

Mid-2000s fashion wasn't really all that different from early 2000s. People still dumped a tub of gel on their hair to spike it, people still wore cargo pants, all the girls still wanted to look like Avril Lavigne (until her 2007 song "Girlfriend" came then she became super uncool and girls moved onto Paramore).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/06/16 at 1:30 am


Well you're judging it by the stuff you saw at Warped Tour, you're going to see crazy fashion there obviously. ;D

Mid-2000s fashion wasn't really all that different from early 2000s. People still dumped a tub of gel on their hair to spike it, people still wore cargo pants, all the girls still wanted to look like Avril Lavigne (until her 2007 song "Girlfriend" came then she became super uncool and girls moved onto Paramore).


Uh, no, sorry. Warped 2005 was the last Warped I ever went to. After that... No way am I going back! I am talking about in general, like going to the store or Taco Bell where some incompetent (;D) teenager works. Everyone had that haircut back then ('cept me!).

:o :o :o

I don't remember spiky hair being bigger than the "wings" Zac Afron haircut in the mid-00's nor do I remember girls trying to be Avril Lavigne (do you mean 2004 Avril? That makes more sense than 2002 tomboy Avril). I think my little demonstration of the real 2000's is very accurate.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/06/16 at 1:53 am

I'd say 2004 Avril Lavigne is not too far off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMbIipvQL0c

(in the middle of that video)

A mix of that and Mean Girls and you've got mid-2000s tween/early teen fahsion lol.

For dudes, fashion wise, I'd say David Beckham gets it right most the time. 2006 David Beckham

http://ca.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/healthandbeauty/201012204685/celebrity/transformations/david-beckham/0-14-806/2006--a.jpg

2004/2005 Beckham comes close to your shag, but not really.

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/53/2005/RJGP.jpg

Other than that, fashion-wise, I'd say most dudes followed John Cena and Eminem, and not Green Day. No way shag was popular in 2005/2006, I know because I would side-sweep my hair because I didn't care too much (just get a hairbrush and sweep it to the side), and the other kids picked on me for not dumping gel on my hair up like all the cool kids were. ;D If shag was popular, my hair would have been a step above shag.

Maybe you are confusing kids who are too lazy to get a haircut for deliberate hairstyles. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/06/16 at 2:12 am


I'd say 2004 Avril Lavigne is not too far off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMbIipvQL0c

(in the middle of that video)

A mix of that and Mean Girls and you've got mid-2000s tween/early teen fahsion lol.


It's not too far off but it's a bit different. Avril started wearing girly clothes around this era, too. I agree about that dumb Mean Girls look. That was definitely in and it makes me glad I was not in High School when it took off.


For dudes, fashion wise, I'd say David Beckham gets it right most the time. 2006 David Beckham

http://ca.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/healthandbeauty/201012204685/celebrity/transformations/david-beckham/0-14-806/2006--a.jpg

2004/2005 Beckham comes close to your shag, but not really.

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/53/2005/RJGP.jpg

Other than that, fashion-wise, I'd say most dudes followed John Cena and Eminem, and not Green Day. No way shag was popular in 2005/2006, I know because I would side-sweep my hair because I didn't care too much (just get a hairbrush and sweep it to the side), and the other kids picked on me for not dumping gel on my hair up like all the cool kids were. ;D If shag was popular, my hair would have been a step above shag.

Maybe you are confusing kids who are too lazy to get a haircut for deliberate hairstyles. ;D


:o :o :o

Really? I remember everyone having shaggy wings in 2005-2006! But David Beckman does have generic hair and not interesting spiky bleached hair so I guess I will allow it but I am almost certain the shaggy wings were popular during this time. You should of been Mr. Popular with that dumb haircut!

I dunno if I'm confusing kids who are too lazy because I saw it everywhere! Like, everywhere!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 03/06/16 at 6:52 am


The real 2000's in a nutshell:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/WingsHaircut.jpg

"Yo, dogg, you lizten 2 rap?"

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d2/46/e8/d246e82ced989555e9f945ff3ec8c354.jpg

"Yeah, of course I lizten 2 rap, dogg. What do u even hav 2 ask?"

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a0/64/d3/a064d32b23871dbe03aa6ab77f09187a.jpg

"Yo, you guys like rap? sheeetttt, I like rap, too. G-G-G-G-G UNIT!"

http://bp2.blogger.com/_XAePxwGya7E/R1z9Rju2lVI/AAAAAAAAAjA/xknVW7bWRuM/s400/mitchel.jpg

"Sup, homies. Wanna play sum fiddy cent bullet proof on my psp?"

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/515V1RBN9VL._SY300_.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/WingsHaircut.jpg

"yo that's soooo G dogg"

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a0/64/d3/a064d32b23871dbe03aa6ab77f09187a.jpg

"Yo I call playin as snoooooooooppp"

http://img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com/78f06c179de4e9973d40ed829e4cf0b7/http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj136/hmfsoccer2495/Teen-men-hairstyle-with-long-ban-3.jpg

"Yo doggz imma get in on diz"


My Middle School Years in a nutshell ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/06/16 at 9:39 am


Yep, rap dominated the radio 2004-2008.


And it still does. Even in the United States, we still have people like Drake, Jay-Z, Kanye West, and other rappers dominating today's radio stations.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/06/16 at 11:33 am


It's not too far off but it's a bit different. Avril started wearing girly clothes around this era, too. I agree about that dumb Mean Girls look. That was definitely in and it makes me glad I was not in High School when it took off.

:o :o :o

Really? I remember everyone having shaggy wings in 2005-2006! But David Beckman does have generic hair and not interesting spiky bleached hair so I guess I will allow it but I am almost certain the shaggy wings were popular during this time. You should of been Mr. Popular with that dumb haircut!

I dunno if I'm confusing kids who are too lazy because I saw it everywhere! Like, everywhere!


It doesn't even fit in with the attitude of the era though. Everything's about being macho, listening to hip-hop, buying a PSP to look 'gangsta' and picking on the DS kids, buying GTA and God of War to look "mature" and "adult", people putting ringtone rap on their phones, buying that chain with a lock on it or other bling to look like John Cena. Where does the shag even come in?! ;D


And it still does. Even in the United States, we still have people like Drake, Jay-Z, Kanye West, and other rappers dominating today's radio stations.


Not as much as the mid-2000s. Back then it felt like 60-70% of the songs on the radio were rap/R&B, now it's closer to, like, 20%.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 03/06/16 at 11:42 am


Not as much as the mid-2000s. Back then it felt like 60-70% of the songs on the radio were rap/R&B, now it's closer to, like, 20%.


It depends on what radio station you listen to. I don't know how it works in Canada or your local area, but here in Atlanta, GA, U.S. our hip-hop station is 107-9, which sucks IMO because it's always the clean version of songs, but I used to listen to that station all the time throughout middle school and high school. You also have separate stations for country or gospel music as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/06/16 at 11:46 am


It depends on what radio station you listen to. I don't know how it works in Canada or your local area, but here in Atlanta, GA, U.S. our hip-hop station is 107-9, which sucks IMO because it's always the clean version of songs, but I used to listen to that station all the time throughout middle school and high school. You also have separate stations for country or gospel music as well.


But then there's general pop or Top 40 station. They were playing R&B back then, nowadays they play teen pop mostly.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 03/06/16 at 11:49 am


But then there's general pop or Top 40 station. They were playing R&B back then, nowadays they play teen pop mostly.


True, like the radio stations that play all genres of music and mix it up based off what's mostly popular on the billboard charts.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/06/16 at 11:54 am


It doesn't even fit in with the attitude of the era though. Everything's about being macho, listening to hip-hop, buying a PSP to look 'gangsta' and picking on the DS kids, buying GTA and God of War to look "mature" and "adult", people putting ringtone rap on their phones, buying that chain with a lock on it or other bling to look like John Cena. Where does the shag even come in?! ;D


PSP = "gangsta." This makes sense, I can see how the PSP is such a gangstas system. Snoop Dogg in the hood with all his homie probably played PSP in their spare time, too. It totally does fit with the era! You'd see stupid kids everywhere with shags, iPods, John Cena shirts and "fiddy sent hatz wid dah stikkr." What a terrible time to be alive.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/06/16 at 12:42 pm


Not as much as the mid-2000s. Back then it felt like 60-70% of the songs on the radio were rap/R&B, now it's closer to, like, 20%.


But if you went on the Internet, there would be so many rap songs than you could imagine. Even more than the mid 2000s had for its hip-hop radio stations.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/06/16 at 12:59 pm


But if you went on the Internet, there would be so many rap songs than you could imagine. Even more than the mid 2000s had for its hip-hop radio stations.


There was Internet in the mid-2000s as well though.  :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/06/16 at 1:00 pm


There was Internet in the mid-2000s as well though.  :o


But YouTube wasn't popular in the mid 2000s. And even though, rap didn't spam the website until the very late 2000s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/06/16 at 1:01 pm


But YouTube wasn't popular in the mid 2000s. And even though, rap didn't spam the website until the very late 2000s.

We had Yahoo! Music which was very popular.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/06/16 at 1:06 pm


We had Yahoo! Music which was very popular.


But it's not like hundreds of millions of people heard of it, unless they were using their desktop/laptop computers.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/06/16 at 1:08 pm


But it's not like hundreds of millions of people heard of it, unless they were using their desktop/laptop computers.


I'm pretty sure they had? Yahoo! was the #1 website for much of the early Internet. There was also MP3.com, though that was only for sampling. People also downloaded songs off Limewire.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/06/16 at 1:13 pm


I'm pretty sure they had? Yahoo! was the #1 website for much of the early Internet. There was also MP3.com, though that was only for sampling. People also downloaded songs off Limewire.


Okay yeah. You do have a point there. However, I think Yahoo wasn't as popular as YouTube nowadays. YouTube is popular towards people with desktops, smartphones, and tablets. Yahoo was popular in a time where people only used computers to access the Internet.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/06/16 at 1:18 pm


Okay yeah. You do have a point there. However, I think Yahoo wasn't as popular as YouTube nowadays. YouTube is popular towards people with desktops, smartphones, and tablets. Yahoo was popular in a time where people only used computers to access the Internet.


That's true. But YouTube for music is only good on the desktop anyway. If you try to play music through YouTube on your phone it drains battery because you have to keep the screen on.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 03/06/16 at 3:53 pm


But YouTube wasn't popular in the mid 2000s. And even though, rap didn't spam the website until the very late 2000s.


YouTube started to get popular in the late 2000's.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/06/16 at 3:54 pm


YouTube started to get popular in the late 2000's.


I meant that about rap music. Although, you are right that YouTube wasn't popular until the late 2000s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 03/11/16 at 12:55 am


I meant that about rap music. Although, you are right that YouTube wasn't popular until the late 2000s.

It came along in the mid-00s (2005), although I didn't go there for the first time until 2007.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 03/11/16 at 1:12 pm

No offense but I think this thread is decadeology - and it's gone on for nearly 60 pages! :o I think the mods might lock it soon.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 03/11/16 at 2:34 pm


No offense but I think this thread is decadeology - and it's gone on for nearly 60 pages! :o I think the mods might lock it soon.

It is NOT decadeology, that term is REALLY overused! I'm SICK of that word! >:( >:( >:(  This is a fun discussion. :) :\'(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/11/16 at 2:43 pm


No offense but I think this thread is decadeology - and it's gone on for nearly 60 pages! :o I think the mods might lock it soon.


You know, whenever we have these type of threads, they never get deleted.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 03/11/16 at 2:46 pm


It is NOT decadeology, that term is REALLY overused! I'm SICK of that word! >:( >:( >:(  This is a fun discussion. :) :\'(


I feel the exact same pain as you bro. I can understand if people were using the D word because of people spamming threads or mixing up numbers on purpose, but when people use the word as an insult, or an excuse, then it becomes a problem. Having fun discussions or talking about the pop culture by comparing the differences in music, fashion, shows, movies, games, politics, or lifestyles over the years is not de*******gy and has never been. I hate to say it, but it's usually pussies that use the D word on people just to try to get them in trouble with the moderators (when it's really not de*******gy), because they get mad or really upset over people's opinions so they have no choice but to find the easy way out of the conversation or debate.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 03/11/16 at 3:21 pm

That funny moment when the discussions in this thread seem more accurate than what I see on web articles.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 03/11/16 at 3:38 pm


It is NOT decadeology, that term is REALLY overused! I'm SICK of that word! >:( >:( >:(  This is a fun discussion. :) :\'(


I agree, this is a pretty interesting discussion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/11/16 at 4:26 pm


It came along in the mid-00s (2005), although I didn't go there for the first time until 2007.


Yep. It came out 2005 but picked up in popularity in 2006/2007. By the time Avril Lavigne's "Boyfriend" came out in February 2007 and hit 100 million views, YouTube was very well known.


No offense but I think this thread is decadeology - and it's gone on for nearly 60 pages! :o I think the mods might lock it soon.


Better to have everything in one thread than have a million threads eh.  ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/11/16 at 4:30 pm


Yep. It came out 2005 but picked up in popularity in 2006/2007. By the time Avril Lavigne's "Boyfriend" came out in February 2007 and hit 100 million views, YouTube was very well known.

Better to have everything in one thread than have a million threads eh.  ;)


Or maybe we should have certain topic on several threads. Or unless it seems too similar to the mods.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 03/11/16 at 4:40 pm


Yep. It came out 2005 but picked up in popularity in 2006/2007. By the time Avril Lavigne's "Boyfriend" came out in February 2007 and hit 100 million views, YouTube was very well known.


You mean "Girlfreind"? That song had that catchy core 2000's vibe but it was annoying as hell, and I was 11 then.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/11/16 at 4:43 pm


You mean "Girlfreind"? That song had that catchy core 2000's vibe but it was annoying as hell, and I was 11 then.


Haha, whoops yes. It didn't have a core 2000s vibe to me.  >:( Give me He Wasn't and Don't Tell Me for core 2000s, any day of the week.  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onPaBhiJxEE

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 03/11/16 at 5:33 pm


Haha, whoops yes. It didn't have a core 2000s vibe to me.  >:( Give me He Wasn't and Don't Tell Me for core 2000s, any day of the week.  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onPaBhiJxEE


I was saying that the instrumental to Girlfriend had a core 2000's vibe because of all the emo/punk rock band background music that would always be in a lot of 2000's songs from 2003-2007. The lyrics to Girlfriend is what I hated the most about the song, which is why I didn't like it.

I'm pretty sure there many songs out there we like because of how great the instrumental, beat, or background music is. Some songs I could care less about the lyrics because it sounds so dreamy and gets stuck in your head. A lot of Drake, Wiz Khalifa, and Katy Perry songs are like that. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/11/16 at 6:07 pm

Does it? The disappointing thing about Girlfriend to me is that while Avril Lavigne has always been a pop-rock singer, the song Girlfriend of hers emphasizes more the pop part of pop-rock, while her previous ones emphasized the rock portion. This, all while most rock songs were edging closer and closer towards screamo and hardcore in 2007, was really out of tune for the era, at least if you ask me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 03/11/16 at 6:49 pm


Does it? The disappointing thing about Girlfriend to me is that while Avril Lavigne has always been a pop-rock singer, the song Girlfriend of hers emphasizes more the pop part of pop-rock, while her previous ones emphasized the rock portion. This, all while most rock songs were edging closer and closer towards screamo and hardcore in 2007, was really out of tune for the era, at least if you ask me.


I get what you're saying. Either way I don't care for most of Avril Lavigne's songs, but most of the ones I remember have been bad for most of the part. I'm not a fan of that emo/punk/rock/scream/hardcore genre of music anyway so you probably know more about this than I do.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 03/11/16 at 7:04 pm

That brings me to something else. When do people feel rock died as a channel for expressing teen-angst? I feel like the last song to do it would be Last of the American Girls by Green Day, or Get Your Heart On! by Simple Plan, that would make 2011-12 the last year to truly contain it. Although I might be biased because I graduated around that time. What does everyone else think? Would that be generation defining?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 03/11/16 at 7:07 pm


That brings me to something else. When do people feel rock died as a channel for expressing teen-angst? I feel like the last song to do it would be Last of the American Girls by Green Day, or Get Your Heart On! by Simple Plan, that would make 2010-11 the last year to truly contain it. Although I might be biased because I graduated around that time. What does everyone else think? Would that be generation defining?


I agree! From what I remember Post Grunge, Emo, & Scene Music was on its last legs during my freshman year of high school. Although the Scene Subculture remained intact until my Junior Year when the Hipster subculture started to rise. So your right, the era of Rock (at least the most recent golden age during the 90's & 00's) came to end around 2010. It seems like in this decade electropop and EDM is the new teenage angst music

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/11/16 at 7:12 pm


That brings me to something else. When do people feel rock died as a channel for expressing teen-angst? I feel like the last song to do it would be Last of the American Girls by Green Day, or Get Your Heart On! by Simple Plan, that would make 2011-12 the last year to truly contain it. Although I might be biased because I graduated around that time. What does everyone else think? Would that be generation defining?


I felt like rock died the same time you mentioned. Ever since 2011, we barely get any rock hits. Even indie rock isn't helping their cases, since they aren't that memorable. I don't know what you have in Canadian music nowadays (aside from Drake and Justin Bieber), but I think it might be different where I live in the United States.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 03/11/16 at 7:28 pm


I agree! From what I remember Post Grunge, Emo, & Scene Music was on its last legs during my freshman year of high school. Although the Scene Subculture remained intact until my Junior Year when the Hipster subculture started to rise. So your right, the era of Rock (at least the most recent golden age during the 90's & 00's) came to end around 2010. It seems like in this decade electropop and EDM is the new teenage angst music


Man, this is so depressing  :-[. Hopefully something better will come along, once this current era dies.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: cool123 on 03/11/16 at 8:11 pm

This is the teenage angst music of today. 8-P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-cxPIOAfSk

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/11/16 at 10:38 pm


Does it? The disappointing thing about Girlfriend to me is that while Avril Lavigne has always been a pop-rock singer, the song Girlfriend of hers emphasizes more the pop part of pop-rock, while her previous ones emphasized the rock portion. This, all while most rock songs were edging closer and closer towards screamo and hardcore in 2007, was really out of tune for the era, at least if you ask me.


Not real Screamo or Hardcore, though. Those genres died in 2003 and 1989/1990, respectively. ;)


I'm pretty sure they had? Yahoo! was the #1 website for much of the early Internet. There was also MP3.com, though that was only for sampling. People also downloaded songs off Limewire.


MP3.com was the king of MP3 sites from like... 1998 to 2003 or so. I would of used it all the time if I wasn't on dial-up.





Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 03/18/16 at 1:28 am

Finally he's gone!  >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 03/18/16 at 1:53 am


Finally he's gone!  >:(


Wait who? ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 03/18/16 at 5:49 am


Finally he's gone!  >:(


Nobody knows who you're talking about.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Philip Eno on 03/18/16 at 6:22 am


Finally he's gone!  >:(
Gone to bed? If so, pleasant dreams.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 03/18/16 at 7:52 am


Finally he's gone!  >:(


Who's gone?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Philip Eno on 03/18/16 at 7:52 am


Who's gone?
Good question?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/18/16 at 8:11 am


Finally he's gone!  >:(


Who?


Gone to bed? If so, pleasant dreams.


Ha, that was funny.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Philip Eno on 03/18/16 at 8:12 am


Who?

Ha, that was funny.
Was it you?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/18/16 at 8:15 am


Was it you?


No, 'cause I never left. I did go to sleep, though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 03/18/16 at 8:45 am


No, 'cause I never left. I did go to sleep, though.


I went to sleep.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 03/18/16 at 8:45 am


I went to sleep.


I had a pretty good sleep, which is unusual for me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/05/16 at 6:14 pm

Generations by social media platform

Early Generation Y (early Internet, personal homepages, instant messengers)

LiveJournal
Xanga
Geocities
AngelFire
MSN
Yahoo! Instant Messenger
AOL Instant Messenger
ICQ
IRC

Late Generation Y (more advanced browser based social media platforms, text based or journal/blog style, online gaming)

MySpace
Facebook
Blogger
WordPress
Bebo
Hi5
Orkut
(pre-2013) Twitter
Tumblr
Xbox Live
Playstation Network
Steam
Forums or bulletin boards such as this one
4chan
Digg
Reddit


Early Generation Z (exclusively or heavily reliant on smartphones, usually image/video based)

Snapchat
Instagram
Vine
(Post-2012) Twitter when they added imbedded images
WhatsApp
YiK YaK

Y/Z cusp (smartphone exclusive or smartphone reliant social media platforms that are targetted towards an older audience)

Tinder
Foursquare
Yelp!
MyFitnessPal/Fitbit/other goal or health apps

-----

What do you guys think? Something I was thinking about while bored ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 05/05/16 at 6:26 pm


Generations by social media platform

Early Generation Y (early Internet, personal homepages, instant messengers)

LiveJournal
Xanga
Geocities
AngelFire
MSN
Yahoo! Instant Messenger
AOL Instant Messenger
ICQ
IRC

Late Generation Y (more advanced browser based social media platforms, text based or journal/blog style, online gaming)

MySpace
Facebook
Blogger
Blogspot
Bebo
Hi5
Orkut
(pre-2013) Twitter
Tumblr
Xbox Live
Playstation Network
Steam
Forums or bulletin boards such as this one
4chan
Digg
Reddit


Early Generation Z (exclusively or heavily reliant on smartphones, usually image/video based)

Snapchat
Instagram
Vine
(Post-2012) Twitter when they added imbedded images
WhatsApp
YiK YaK

Y/Z cusp (smartphone exclusive or smartphone reliant social media platforms that are targetted towards an older audience)

Tinder
Foursquare
Yelp!
MyFitnessPal/Fitbit/other goal or health apps

-----

What do you guys think? Something I was thinking about while bored ;D


Seems about right, however, I thought Blogger and Blogspot were the same thing.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/05/16 at 6:36 pm


Seems about right, however, I thought Blogger and Blogspot were the same thing.


You're right. I was thinking of WordPress but the name escaped me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/06/16 at 10:04 pm


Generations by social media platform

Early Generation Y (early Internet, personal homepages, instant messengers)

LiveJournal
Xanga
Geocities
AngelFire
MSN
Yahoo! Instant Messenger
AOL Instant Messenger
ICQ
IRC

Late Generation Y (more advanced browser based social media platforms, text based or journal/blog style, online gaming)

MySpace
Facebook
Blogger
WordPress
Bebo
Hi5
Orkut
(pre-2013) Twitter
Tumblr
Xbox Live
Playstation Network
Steam
Forums or bulletin boards such as this one
4chan
Digg
Reddit


Early Generation Z (exclusively or heavily reliant on smartphones, usually image/video based)

Snapchat
Instagram
Vine
(Post-2012) Twitter when they added imbedded images
WhatsApp
YiK YaK

Y/Z cusp (smartphone exclusive or smartphone reliant social media platforms that are targetted towards an older audience)

Tinder
Foursquare
Yelp!
MyFitnessPal/Fitbit/other goal or health apps

-----

What do you guys think? Something I was thinking about while bored ;D


You forgot:
- Makeoutclub
- Onlyundiesclub
- Lipstickclub
- Scenefashion
- Friendster

Friendstar was really tame but those others? Awful, awful sites.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 05/06/16 at 11:23 pm


Seems about right, however, I thought Blogger and Blogspot were the same thing.

You're right. I was thinking of WordPress but the name escaped me.

I had thought they were similar, but then I never really visited either site on a regular basis.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/07/16 at 4:09 pm


I had thought they were similar, but then I never really visited either site on a regular basis.


Oh, they're just blogging services. A lot of blogs are powered by them, you wouldn't really know you're on a Blogger/WordPress blog unless the site says. Blogger was popular when I was in high school. I had a semi-popular blog, about 300 readers everyday. A lot of my friends had their own thing too; photography, parkour videos, or just regular day-to-day life blogging.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/07/16 at 4:17 pm


Generations by social media platform

Early Generation Y (early Internet, personal homepages, instant messengers)

LiveJournal
Xanga
Geocities
AngelFire
MSN
Yahoo! Instant Messenger
AOL Instant Messenger
ICQ
IRC

Late Generation Y (more advanced browser based social media platforms, text based or journal/blog style, online gaming)

MySpace
Facebook
Blogger
WordPress
Bebo
Hi5
Orkut
(pre-2013) Twitter
Tumblr
Xbox Live
Playstation Network
Steam
Forums or bulletin boards such as this one
4chan
Digg
Reddit


Early Generation Z (exclusively or heavily reliant on smartphones, usually image/video based)

Snapchat
Instagram
Vine
(Post-2012) Twitter when they added imbedded images
WhatsApp
YiK YaK

Y/Z cusp (smartphone exclusive or smartphone reliant social media platforms that are targetted towards an older audience)

Tinder
Foursquare
Yelp!
MyFitnessPal/Fitbit/other goal or health apps

-----

What do you guys think? Something I was thinking about while bored ;D


Damn, Early Gen Y had the best networks out there. I can't be proud of being a teen in this decade because of those tech-savvy idiots.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 05/07/16 at 11:11 pm


Oh, they're just blogging services. A lot of blogs are powered by them, you wouldn't really know you're on a Blogger/WordPress blog unless the site says. Blogger was popular when I was in high school. I had a semi-popular blog, about 300 readers everyday. A lot of my friends had their own thing too; photography, parkour videos, or just regular day-to-day life blogging.

Thanks for the info. Like I said, I never really paid attention to either site, so I didn't know the difference.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/09/16 at 7:27 pm

How about we take a look of the school culture during certain eras. For example, say if someone was in HS for the duration of the 00s, that person is positively a Millennial. That means a person who's currently there right now is pretty much a Plural.

College culture from the early 00s to early-mid 10s was fully Echo Boomer (Y).

HS culture from the late 90s to early 10s was fully Echo Boomer (Y). Today, it's totally Centennial (Z).

MS culture from the mid 90s to mid-late 00s was fully Echo Boomer (Y). Today, it's totally Centennial (Z).

ES culture from the late 80s to early 00s was fully Echo Boomer (Y). Today, it's totally Centennial (Z).

Currently, the college atmosphere is in a Y/Z atmosphere (the transition is almost complete) considering that community is mostly is 2 years while university is 4.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 05/09/16 at 8:43 pm


How about we take a look of the school culture during certain eras. For example, say if someone was in HS for the duration of the 00s, that person is positively a Millennial. That means a person who's currently there right now is pretty much a Plural.

College culture from the early 00s to early-mid 10s was fully Echo Boomer (Y).

HS culture from the late 90s to early 10s was fully Echo Boomer (Y). Today, it's totally Centennial (Z).

MS culture from the mid 90s to mid-late 00s was fully Echo Boomer (Y). Today, it's totally Centennial (Z).

ES culture from the late 80s to early 00s was fully Echo Boomer (Y). Today, it's totally Centennial (Z).

Currently, the college atmosphere is in a Y/Z atmosphere (the transition is almost complete) considering that community is mostly is 2 years while university is 4.


This means that in 2016:

College is full of late 1994-early 1998 people.
HS is full of late 1998-early 2002 people.
MS is full of late 2002-early 2006 people.
ES is full of late 2006-early 2010 people.

There is no cutoff year for the Y/Z boundary, so for example, the late 1998-early 2000 people still in high school could be late Y, etc. In the year 2020, the whole school system (PS, ES, MS, HS, College, University) would be filled with Centennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/09/16 at 8:50 pm


This means that in 2016:

College is full of late 1994-early 1998 people.
HS is full of late 1998-early 2002 people.
MS is full of late 2002-early 2006 people.
ES is full of late 2006-early 2010 people.

There is no cutoff year for the Y/Z boundary, so for example, the late 1998-early 2000 people still in high school could be late Y, etc.
Correct, but that's next year. We're still in the 2015-16 calendar (although it's almost over).

That depends though. I have family in that group and I honestly don't see them with full Z traits. One day, the generation could end in 2000 or end in 1994/96/98 and the determination could happen sooner as the oldest of the Millennials is close to 40. 


Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 05/09/16 at 11:48 pm


Who's gone?


ocarinafan96. I made that post because by the time he deleted his account the day after his birthday I had become extremely irritated by his flakiness. However, with not even two full months having passed since his departure, I kind of miss him. He was the pacifier in the community among the new school members. He was also a pretty creative poster.

I noticed he also retired his account on Personality Cafe. Perhaps life got hard and he had to stop using the forums?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/10/16 at 7:47 am

Yeah, ocarinafan96's departure took some time for me to get used to. Before I started getting on personality cafe, and eventually this one, he was one of the very first guys I met. He getting on personality cafe and coming up with his topics and discussions motivated me to sign up on there and eventually get on here as well. I give him a lot of credit for that. Eazy-EMan1995 (Eric) is probably one of my closest buddies on this site right now.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/10/16 at 3:02 pm


Interesting what RobinofLocksey from Personality Cafe said....
From RobinofLocksey,
''The full range of Gen Y to me would be 1981-2000. However, if I were to split it up, I'd split it in 4, rather than 3.''


''1981-1985: The first group of Gen Y. These guys were in high school or college during the late 90s early 00s when millennium culture was huge. Being the leaders of Y, they still have many influences of Gen X in them, they spent their childhood into their teen years when X culture dominated, and this group was old enough to fight the war in Iraq right from the get-go when it started in 2003. Britney Spears "Hit Me Baby One More Time" in 1998 was the absolute dawn of Generation Y culture, and it was pretty obvious that Gen X's hayday by that point was over.
Celebrities - Britney Spears, Beyonce Knowles, Justin Timberlake, Pitbull, Alicia Keys, Kelly Clarkson, Nicki Minaj, Lil Wayne, Mila Kunis, Carrie Underwood, Mark Zuckerberg, Avril Lavigne, Patrick Stump, Katy Perry, Bruno Mars


1986-1990: The second group of Gen Y. These guys were still pretty young during the millennium era of 1997-2003. However, these guys were basically the core teenage group of the 00s, and were in high school and college when emo/scene was popular and when social networking was taking off. This group was probably the hardest hit by the financial crisis being they were 18-22 in 2008.
Celebrities - Lady Gaga, Lindsay Lohan, Amanda Bynes, Drake Bell, Josh Peck, Ellie Goulding, Kesha, Hillary Duff, Zac Efron, Rihanna, Emma Stone, Adele, Jason Derulo, Daniel Radcliffe, PewDiePie, Taylor Swift, Emma Watson, Iggy Azalea, Jennifer Lawrence


1991-1995: The third group of Gen Y. These guys were the last to have entered compulsory school in the 20th century, and the last to have been affected by 9/11, albeit they were 6-10 and a little naive about the world at the time. These guys were in high school or college in the late 00s early 10s, and were the target audience for stuff like electropop, dubstep, etc. of that era. Many of them used social media before they were in high school.
Celebrities - Ed Sheeran, Daniel O'Brien, Nick Jonas, Jenette McCurdy, Sam Smith, Demi Lovato, Selena Gomez, Miley Cyrus, Zayn Malik, Meghan Trainor, Miranda Cosgrove, Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, Caspar Lee, Ross Lynch


1996-2000: The fourth group of Gen Y. These guys were too young to have remembered or been impacted by 9/11, the oldest of this group were 5 when the event happened and only barely starting kindergarten, so even if they do remember the event, it won't impact their lives at all. They were the last people born in the 20th century, grew up when social media was popular and most of them got a social media account in elementary school. Being the caboose of Y, they have many influences of Gen Z in them. They're becoming adults in the mid-late 10s, as Russia is returning to its superpower status with the invasion of Ukraine, as well as with the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Celebrities - Dove Cameron, Luke Hemmings, Zendaya Coleman, Lorde, Rebecca Black, Kylie Jenner, Bella Thorne, Shawn Mendez, Ariel Winter, Peyton List, Silento, Sabrina Carpenter, Daniel Skye, Baby Ariel''


What do you guys think of what this dude said? Mq(Marquis) already gave his piece, I'm interested on what the rest of y'all think!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/10/16 at 3:26 pm

I think I agree with being in the 1996-2000 group, since...

A) I can't remember anything prior to 2002, which is after 9/11.
B) My childhood was in the mid-late 2000s, which is what most late 90s babies had their childhood.
C) I became a teenager in the early 2010s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/10/16 at 3:36 pm

The 1991-1995 one is so unexciting. Did more than get drunk listening to Kesha LOL

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 05/10/16 at 3:55 pm


Interesting what RobinofLocksey from Personality Cafe said....
From RobinofLocksey,
''The full range of Gen Y to me would be 1981-2000. However, if I were to split it up, I'd split it in 4, rather than 3.''


''1981-1985: The first group of Gen Y. These guys were in high school or college during the late 90s early 00s when millennium culture was huge. Being the leaders of Y, they still have many influences of Gen X in them, they spent their childhood into their teen years when X culture dominated, and this group was old enough to fight the war in Iraq right from the get-go when it started in 2003. Britney Spears "Hit Me Baby One More Time" in 1998 was the absolute dawn of Generation Y culture, and it was pretty obvious that Gen X's hayday by that point was over.
Celebrities - Britney Spears, Beyonce Knowles, Justin Timberlake, Pitbull, Alicia Keys, Kelly Clarkson, Nicki Minaj, Lil Wayne, Mila Kunis, Carrie Underwood, Mark Zuckerberg, Avril Lavigne, Patrick Stump, Katy Perry, Bruno Mars


1986-1990: The second group of Gen Y. These guys were still pretty young during the millennium era of 1997-2003. However, these guys were basically the core teenage group of the 00s, and were in high school and college when emo/scene was popular and when social networking was taking off. This group was probably the hardest hit by the financial crisis being they were 18-22 in 2008.
Celebrities - Lady Gaga, Lindsay Lohan, Amanda Bynes, Drake Bell, Josh Peck, Ellie Goulding, Kesha, Hillary Duff, Zac Efron, Rihanna, Emma Stone, Adele, Jason Derulo, Daniel Radcliffe, PewDiePie, Taylor Swift, Emma Watson, Iggy Azalea, Jennifer Lawrence


1991-1995: The third group of Gen Y. These guys were the last to have entered compulsory school in the 20th century, and the last to have been affected by 9/11, albeit they were 6-10 and a little naive about the world at the time. These guys were in high school or college in the late 00s early 10s, and were the target audience for stuff like electropop, dubstep, etc. of that era. Many of them used social media before they were in high school.
Celebrities - Ed Sheeran, Daniel O'Brien, Nick Jonas, Jenette McCurdy, Sam Smith, Demi Lovato, Selena Gomez, Miley Cyrus, Zayn Malik, Meghan Trainor, Miranda Cosgrove, Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, Caspar Lee, Ross Lynch


1996-2000: The fourth group of Gen Y. These guys were too young to have remembered or been impacted by 9/11, the oldest of this group were 5 when the event happened and only barely starting kindergarten, so even if they do remember the event, it won't impact their lives at all. They were the last people born in the 20th century, grew up when social media was popular and most of them got a social media account in elementary school. Being the caboose of Y, they have many influences of Gen Z in them. They're becoming adults in the mid-late 10s, as Russia is returning to its superpower status with the invasion of Ukraine, as well as with the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Celebrities - Dove Cameron, Luke Hemmings, Zendaya Coleman, Lorde, Rebecca Black, Kylie Jenner, Bella Thorne, Shawn Mendez, Ariel Winter, Peyton List, Silento, Sabrina Carpenter, Daniel Skye, Baby Ariel''


What do you guys think of what this dude said? Mq(Marquis) already gave his piece, I'm interested on what the rest of y'all think!


I can understand where he's coming from, but this is really constricting. I think it's more appropriate to use high school graduation dates instead of birth years, because I was born in late '95 and I can only mildly relate to the one I was placed in to. This is more flexible and accurate imo:

Older Millennials: 1982-1991 births
Younger Millennials: 1992-2001 births
Early Mill.s: High School Classes of 2000 - 2005
Prime Mill.s: High School Classes of 2006 - 2013
Late Mill.s: High School Classes of 2014 - 2019 (maybe 2020, because people born in late '01 will graduate high school then.)

And before anyone disagrees, I just want to point out that the kids in high school now are just as Millennial as someone born in 1992. What really unifies this generation is political and mental matters. Pop cultural matters are fleeting, so it's no surprise the oldest Millennials are going to be very different in music, clothing, film, and television compared to the younger members.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 05/10/16 at 7:24 pm


The 1991-1995 one is so unexciting. Did more than get drunk listening to Kesha LOL


Nah. Getting drunk and listening to Kesha is all 1991-1995 ever did. It was like an addiction for you guys.  ;D

All jokes aside I don't disagree with EMAN95's post as it works/makes sense to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/10/16 at 10:35 pm


Nah. Getting drunk and listening to Kesha is all 1991-1995 ever did. It was like an addiction for you guys.  ;D

All jokes aside I don't disagree with EMAN95's post as it works/makes sense to me.


It doesn't seem particularly insightful to me. It didn't really make a good case for why late 90s people are a part of the same generation as those born in the early 80s. It just grouped 5 year groups together and said what each one did. The only universal thing I can see here is 9/11, but the latter group doesn't even remember it apparently.  ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/10/16 at 10:38 pm


It doesn't seem particularly insightful to me. It didn't really make a good case for why late 90s people are a part of the same generation as those born in the early 80s. It just grouped them together and said what each one did. The only universal thing I can see here is 9/11, but the latter group doesn't even remember it apparently.  ???


If you ask me, people born in the early 80s are of the X generation. 8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/10/16 at 10:41 pm


If you ask me, people born in the early 80s are of the X generation. 8)


Even after we discussed the real meaning of X?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/10/16 at 10:46 pm

I still think my first post on this topic was GOAT. Like, I had mathematical data that Gen Y exists. The rest of you aren't even trying.


I think events in adulthood are way more important in defining generations than events in childhood.

For Boomers, that would be the Vietnam draft, Watergate, and also the election of Raegan. They entered the job market during the '70s and '80s where pension plans were out and 401ks were in, then they lost their retirement savings during the Great Recession. They're also the "Sandwich Generation": taking care of their aging parents while also taking care of their kids at the same time. Most people place Boomers as born between 1946 - 1964, though some like to group early 60s babies with Gen X.

Gen Xers were the first generation to be worse off compared to the generation before them in a while, they were entering the job market during the early '90s recessions and the early 2000s recession and got straddled with student debt. Also were known for doing a lot of drugs in their youth. Also a part of the "Sandwich generation".  Born 1965 - 1979, but also as early as 1962 and as late as 1982.

Millennials were the people entering or getting a foothold in the job market during the Great Recession and its aftermath (2008 - 2014). They were also the ones who protested the Iraq War and were the anti-George Bush in general. Very irreligious, very liberal, and also very stingy with money. Generally, I'd put it at 1980 to 1995, but I think it can be extended to 1997. I'm taking some first year university courses and came across some 1996-1997 borns, and they share a lot of the mentality, but they haven't got to vote in an election yet. I'm not sure if they remember the Bush era politics. I don't think we can say for sure when Millennials end, since the generation has not fully matured yet.

Gen Z starts somewhere around there though, the late '90s. If you can't remember the Bush years and the Great Recession then it's hard for me to call you a Millennial IMO.

---

Also a very relevant article, How Birth Year Influences Political Views

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/08/upshot/how-the-year-you-were-born-influences-your-politics.html

A lot of people like to divide Boomers into early Boomers (1946 - 1954, who grew up to be anti-Nixon and anti-Vietnam) and late Boomers (1955 - 1964) who have a lot in common with Gen X, but still grew up in economically prosperous times. You'll see that the Silent Gen (1937 - 1944) is very Republican. With Early Boomers (1946 - 1954) you start seeing Democratic tendancies. With 1955 - 1964 and 1965 - 1979, you're back to Gen X and Late Boomers being strong Republicans. But then in 1979 and 1980 you hit a switch, all of a sudden you get to the Millennials who are strong Democrats.

Caution with the data though, it includes only whites. Once you include non-whites, who almost always vote Democrat, then you find a strong Democratic cohort among Early Boomers and Millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 05/10/16 at 11:28 pm


I still think my first post on this topic was GOAT. Like, I had mathematical data that Gen Y exists. The rest of you aren't even trying.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/56069470.jpg

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/10/16 at 11:32 pm


Nah. Getting drunk and listening to Kesha is all 1991-1995 ever did. It was like an addiction for you guys.  ;D

All jokes aside I don't disagree with EMAN95's post as it works/makes sense to me.

Yeah that dude; RobinofLocksey's post was pretty good, but I'd group early 96ers(like Marquis for example) in with me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/11/16 at 2:33 am


Even after we discussed the real meaning of X?


True meaning of X being: Tony Hawk, David Spade and the Dell Dude's Xtreme Nu Metal Xventure X2point5 featuring a guest appearance from Mark Hoppus? I'm down with that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/11/16 at 6:10 am


True meaning of X being: Tony Hawk, David Spade and the Dell Dude's Xtreme Nu Metal Xventure X2point5 featuring a guest appearance from Mark Hoppus? I'm down with that.


X means wrong, as in Generation Wrong  :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/11/16 at 9:52 am


X means wrong, as in Generation Wrong  :-X


I thought we established that X means really cool. 8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/11/16 at 1:41 pm

Have you guys seen video? This girl, Alexis Bloomer calls out on this generation using statements that are just laughable. She's right on some issues, but went the wrong way on them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wLmtuhuyhA

And then check the out following responses towards that video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_-x7wIonVM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZv9rEkSro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--cPA6ALwDA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nPTKWHnqSg

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/11/16 at 1:46 pm

And then here are other responses from other generations and popular networks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jspAynVhrCs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtH82PYvVVs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BpaAPijPmU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qiuj_F5UGRk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--dFihR5Wd0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TtWSOn5EH4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU4VGjQuu_o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/11/16 at 2:18 pm

I found this article.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/04/25/who-are-generation/Zd6TMLiRYKgH0xvbLNFh8O/story.html

and another one

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adp/2016/04/26/are-you-prepared-for-the-coming-storm-of-generation-z-talent/#6f442f6a296e

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/11/16 at 8:56 pm

I haven't read or watched any of those articles/videos, but I have proof that 1997 is Gen Z. I made good friends with a guy who works at Subway (and born 97) and he hasn't watched Dragon Ball Z OR Friends. A mess.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/11/16 at 10:50 pm


I haven't read or watched any of those articles/videos, but I have proof that 1997 is Gen Z. I made good friends with a guy who works at Subway (and born 97) and he hasn't watched Dragon Ball Z OR Friends. A mess.


Here in the U.S. someone born in 1997 could have easily caught Dragon Ball Z in 2003 or 2005.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/12/16 at 6:15 am


Here in the U.S. someone born in 1997 could have easily caught Dragon Ball Z in 2003 or 2005.


Okay ask all your 97 friends if they watched DBZ and if they say no, make them feel bad.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/12/16 at 9:40 am


Okay ask all your 97 friends if they watched DBZ and if they say no, make them feel bad.


Well it depends. I don't think it matters what year you were born in. Not everybody watched anime growing up. Anime here in the U.S. came on the weekdays from 1997-2003 and Saturday nights from 2004-2008. DBZ was on weekdays consistently from 1998-2003, Saturday nights throughout 2005-early 2006 (uncut), and aired one more time throughout 2007. A lot of people don't realize that DBZ was still on Cartoon Network throughout 2005 & 2007, it just wasn't as popular as it was when the original Ocean or Funimation dub (this still confuses me) was on Toonami from 1998-2003. DBGT, the one people complained about the most, was very short lived. It was only on our channel from late 2003-early 2005 and never came back again.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 05/12/16 at 10:04 am


Well it depends. I don't think it matters what year you were born in. Not everybody watched anime growing up. Anime here in the U.S. came on the weekdays from 1997-2003 and Saturday nights from 2004-2008. DBZ was on weekdays consistently from 1998-2003, Saturday nights throughout 2005-early 2006 (uncut), and aired one more time throughout 2007. A lot of people don't realize that DBZ was still on Cartoon Network throughout 2005 & 2007, it just wasn't as popular as it was when the original Ocean or Funimation dub (this still confuses me) was on Toonami from 1998-2003. DBGT, the one people complained about the most, was very short lived. It was only on our channel from late 2003-early 2005 and never came back again.


I agree with this. There was no bigger TMNT fan in the early '90s than me, even though the cartoon peaked around 1990 and debuted on TV the same year I was born. I also liked to watch other '80s shows as a kid that "predated" me as well, like Alvin & the Chipmunks and Real Ghostbusters. I think it's totally reasonable that a '97er could've gotten into DBZ, or perhaps even other longer running '90s shows too like Hey Arnold or Rugrats, both of which didn't technically end until 2004.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/12/16 at 10:41 am


I agree with this. There was no bigger TMNT fan in the early '90s than me, even though the cartoon peaked around 1990 and debuted on TV the same year I was born. I also liked to watch other '80s shows as a kid that "predated" me as well, like Alvin & the Chipmunks and Real Ghostbusters. I think it's totally reasonable that a '97er could've gotten into DBZ, or perhaps even other longer running '90s shows too like Hey Arnold or Rugrats, both of which didn't technically end until 2004.


If you say so. It's just that he said he was an Anime fan, and I made the greatest DBZ joke ever, like, even I laughed at my own joke, and he just looked at me confused.  :\'( Embarrassing.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 05/12/16 at 10:59 am


If you say so. It's just that he said he was an Anime fan, and I made the greatest DBZ joke ever, like, even I laughed at my own joke, and he just looked at me confused.  :\'( Embarrassing.


Well, now you've got us all wondering what the joke was...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/12/16 at 11:41 am


I agree with this. There was no bigger TMNT fan in the early '90s than me, even though the cartoon peaked around 1990 and debuted on TV the same year I was born. I also liked to watch other '80s shows as a kid that "predated" me as well, like Alvin & the Chipmunks and Real Ghostbusters. I think it's totally reasonable that a '97er could've gotten into DBZ, or perhaps even other longer running '90s shows too like Hey Arnold or Rugrats, both of which didn't technically end until 2004.


Yep, and I grew up with the 2003 version of TMNT, which was debatably the best series of the entire franchise.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/12/16 at 11:54 am


If you say so. It's just that he said he was an Anime fan, and I made the greatest DBZ joke ever, like, even I laughed at my own joke, and he just looked at me confused.  :\'( Embarrassing.


This guy knows his DBZ history though.......

zosmShYR3dk EDkX17sUels

n5a8JVBBn7o piWHP_DRb6E

7ASUCDek-wQ YKAjkvXJaa0

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/12/16 at 12:04 pm


Well, now you've got us all wondering what the joke was...


Okay, I might have exaggerated a bit...

He was going through training for his sandwich artist job, and he's talking about how boring it is, and how he needs to train like in the anime and make sound effects while adding the toppings like "hya ! Hya! Hwah!".

Then I'm like "Oh yeah, totally. Go super saiyan on that sandwich, get in a hyperbolic time chamber and make those sandwiches in 1000G. You'll be sandwich artist master in no time, after like 50 episodes".

Him -  "Hyperbolic time chamber?  ??? That doesn't sound like a bad idea..."

Me - "Yeah, in 1000 times earth gravity. Play Linkin Park in the background."

Him - "Which show is this?"

Me -  :\'( :\'( :\'(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/12/16 at 2:48 pm


Okay ask all your 97 friends if they watched DBZ and if they say no, make them feel bad.

My 97 friends I went to high school with, all watched DBZ during it's original run..... Granted they started during the last saga; the buu saga. But still! ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 05/12/16 at 3:03 pm


Yep, and I grew up with the 2003 version of TMNT, which was debatably the best series of the entire franchise.


You know, even as a die hard fan of the original '87 TMNT series, I can't really disagree with that. Looking at it objectively, the '03 version actually is better.


Okay, I might have exaggerated a bit...

He was going through training for his sandwich artist job, and he's talking about how boring it is, and how he needs to train like in the anime and make sound effects while adding the toppings like "hya ! Hya! Hwah!".

Then I'm like "Oh yeah, totally. Go super saiyan on that sandwich, get in a hyperbolic time chamber and make those sandwiches in 1000G. You'll be sandwich artist master in no time, after like 50 episodes".

Him -  "Hyperbolic time chamber?  ??? That doesn't sound like a bad idea..."

Me - "Yeah, in 1000 times earth gravity. Play Linkin Park in the background."

Him - "Which show is this?"

Me -  :\'( :\'( :\'(


Wow, he missed a Hyperbolic Time Chamber reference and a Linkin Park AMV reference?! :o

That's gonna be a fatal blow to the "Y2K kid" cred of '97ers everywhere. :(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/12/16 at 4:32 pm


My 97 friends I went to high school with, all watched DBZ during it's original run..... Granted they started during the last saga; the buu saga. But still! ;D ;D


If I remember correctly, the Buu Saga was from 2002 & 2003 right? I believe there were two types of Buu sagas?

My earliest memories of Dragon Ball Z (including the original Dragon Ball) were around 2002.

I wasn't aware of which specific saga I was watching as a kid, but I loved the uncut DBZ from 2005 as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/12/16 at 6:09 pm

I was just joking about the Gen Z stuff. All 97ers I've met are super cool kids. Hopefully I get to meet more as they grow old and decrepit with me. As for Y2K cred, I'll have to mentor him and take him under my wing. Young Grasshopper has ways to go.

I started watching DBZ when they started with the Ginyu Force stuff (Freiza Saga)  :D I think it was 2000 or 2001, I don't think it was the 90s. I caught the entire Cell Saga, that was GOAT and really the only one worth watching tbh.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/12/16 at 10:22 pm


If I remember correctly, the Buu Saga was from 2002 & 2003 right? I believe there were two types of Buu sagas?

My earliest memories of Dragon Ball Z (including the original Dragon Ball) were around 2002.

I wasn't aware of which specific saga I was watching as a kid, but I loved the uncut DBZ from 2005 as well.

The entire Buu saga was from late 2001-2003...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/12/16 at 10:24 pm


I was just joking about the Gen Z stuff. All 97ers I've met are super cool kids. Hopefully I get to meet more as they grow old and decrepit with me. As for Y2K cred, I'll have to mentor him and take him under my wing. Young Grasshopper has ways to go.

I started watching DBZ when they started with the Ginyu Force stuff (Freiza Saga)  :D I think it was 2000 or 2001, I don't think it was the 90s. I caught the entire Cell Saga, that was GOAT and really the only one worth watching tbh.

Frieza saga was in 1999...... Garlic jr was in mid 2000. Cell saga was 2000-2001 school year.
Wait a minute you think the Cell saga was the only one worth watching?! ??? Come on man! Then againn I'm speaking as a die hard fan, I love all of the sagas! :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/12/16 at 11:36 pm


Frieza saga was in 1999...... Garlic jr was in mid 2000. Cell saga was 2000-2001 school year.
Wait a minute you think the Cell saga was the only one worth watching?! ??? Come on man! Then againn I'm speaking as a die hard fan, I love all of the sagas! :D


Maybe it was 1999. I moved to a new house in the summer of 99, that's around the time I got into DBZ from what I remember. I didn't watch it in my old house.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 05/13/16 at 9:59 am


Nah. Getting drunk and listening to Kesha is all 1991-1995 ever did. It was like an addiction for you guys.  ;D


Not really. That was Class of 2013, but not Class of 2014. We were jamming out to Rihanna and Calvin Harris while driving down the highway in our cars and listening to Adele in our downtime. Seriously, there is a big difference between the Class of 2013 and the Class of 2014. A culture shift, if you will. How old are you and when did you graduate high school?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/13/16 at 11:36 am


Not really. That was Class of 2013, but not Class of 2014. We were jamming out to Rihanna and Calvin Harris while driving down the highway in our cars and listening to Adele in our downtime. Seriously, there is a big difference between the Class of 2013 and the Class of 2014. A culture shift, if you will. How old are you and when did you graduate high school?


Not at my school. We grew up with each other. Listened to the same music, wore similar clothes & fashion, watched the same TV shows, etc.

I'd argue that I felt a huge difference between Class of 2012 and Class of 2013. Going by how different the school felt by my junior year compared to my freshman & sophomore years.

I think it's all a suggestive opinion depending on where you grew up.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/13/16 at 5:48 pm

Class of 2012 go with 2009-2011, because their prom night was electropop. 2009 can go with 2007 and 2008 as well though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/13/16 at 8:43 pm


Class of 2012 go with 2009-2011, because their prom night was electropop. 2009 can go with 2007 and 2008 as well though.


I agree, the Class of 2011 & 2012 at my high school were VERY similar to each other. They made the high school fun my freshman and sophomore years, but I thought 2011 was slightly more entertaining, and felt like leaders, role models, and celebrities. While the Class of 2012 had a lot of smart people, but some folks on drugs or steroids at the same time. I had a lot of good friends in the Class of 2013, but the school felt kinda lame by then, A.K.A. my junior year. Our Class of 2014 was epic though, but I feel like we relate to the classes of 2013 & 2015 a lot in common.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/14/16 at 3:45 pm


I agree, the Class of 2011 & 2012 at my high school were VERY similar to each other. They made the high school fun my freshman and sophomore years, but I thought 2011 was slightly more entertaining, and felt like leaders, role models, and celebrities. While the Class of 2012 had a lot of smart people, but some folks on drugs or steroids at the same time. I had a lot of good friends in the Class of 2013, but the school felt kinda lame by then, A.K.A. my junior year. Our Class of 2014 was epic though, but I feel like we relate to the classes of 2013 & 2015 a lot in common.


LOL wow  ;D

I feel like everyone who was in high school during 2008-09 school year is the same mini-generation. The last to remember Bush era politics, most planned their career path before the Great Recession and then had to take a U-Turn once the recession hit.  Then there was the whole Facebook/electropop/2000s backlash thing.

Stretching this theory further... We were all in elementary school by Y2K, we were all in the upper grades of elementary school when 9/11 happened, and we all had electropop on our prom nights.

We were also all in middle school (except C/O 2012) during the peak of the entire 2000s decade (2004-05 school year). For that reason, I'll call us the "American Idiot generation" after the Green Day song  ;D Though like I said, class of 09 can go with the previous classes as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/14/16 at 6:25 pm


Not really. That was Class of 2013, but not Class of 2014. We were jamming out to Rihanna and Calvin Harris while driving down the highway in our cars and listening to Adele in our downtime. Seriously, there is a big difference between the Class of 2013 and the Class of 2014. A culture shift, if you will. How old are you and when did you graduate high school?

Are you joking? What culture shift are you talking bout?! 2013 and 2014 go together imo.
Give me some examples on how 2013 class was different than the 14 class...... :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/14/16 at 6:26 pm


I agree, the Class of 2011 & 2012 at my high school were VERY similar to each other. They made the high school fun my freshman and sophomore years, but I thought 2011 was slightly more entertaining, and felt like leaders, role models, and celebrities. While the Class of 2012 had a lot of smart people, but some folks on drugs or steroids at the same time. I had a lot of good friends in the Class of 2013, but the school felt kinda lame by then, A.K.A. my junior year. Our Class of 2014 was epic though, but I feel like we relate to the classes of 2013 & 2015 a lot in common.

Agreed man! Where I went to, the 2013 and 15 classes were JUST like us! Though I'd group in the 2015 class with the 16 class, but that's just me. ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/14/16 at 7:17 pm


Agreed man! Where I went to, the 2013 and 15 classes were JUST like us! Though I'd group in the 2015 class with the 16 class, but that's just me. ;)


Class of 2016 felt completely different than 2015 IMO. I can't speak for Class of 2017, since I barely talked to them my senior year other than the members on my cross country team.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: TheKid99 on 05/14/16 at 8:13 pm


I think I agree with being in the 1996-2000 group, since...

A) I can't remember anything prior to 2002, which is after 9/11.
B) My childhood was in the mid-late 2000s, which is what most late 90s babies had their childhood.
C) I became a teenager in the early 2010s.

I would agree with this also.

Though my first memory was in late 2000 and I only remember 9/11 very, VERY dimly.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/14/16 at 8:20 pm


I would agree with this also.

Though my first memory was in late 2000 and I only remember 9/11 very, VERY dimly.


You could remember 9/11 as a late 1999 baby? Damn, that's awesome.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/14/16 at 10:35 pm


I feel like everyone who was in high school during 2008-09 school year is the same mini-generation. The last to remember Bush era politics, most planned their career path before the Great Recession and then had to take a U-Turn once the recession hit.  Then there was the whole Facebook/electropop/2000s backlash thing.

Stretching this theory further... We were all in elementary school by Y2K, we were all in the upper grades of elementary school when 9/11 happened, and we all had electropop on our prom nights.

We were also all in middle school (except C/O 2012) during the peak of the entire 2000s decade (2004-05 school year). For that reason, I'll call us the "American Idiot generation" after the Green Day song  ;D Though like I said, class of 09 can go with the previous classes as well.
This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Although for me, I had already planned to be an artist and didn't have to change my career. For prom, that's correct as when I went, they were playing songs of that genre nonstop along with some R&B and Hip-Hop.

That song was released as soon as the school year began and I heard it on the radio along with their other song Boulevard of Broken Dreams

Green Day: I walk alone, I walk alone
;D ;D ;D ;D

I also agree that year was definitely the peak. It was pretty much the core 00s in a nutshell.


I agree, the Class of 2011 & 2012 at my high school were VERY similar to each other. They made the high school fun my freshman and sophomore years, but I thought 2011 was slightly more entertaining, and felt like leaders, role models, and celebrities. While the Class of 2012 had a lot of smart people, but some folks on drugs or steroids at the same time. I had a lot of good friends in the Class of 2013, but the school felt kinda lame by then, A.K.A. my junior year. Our Class of 2014 was epic though, but I feel like we relate to the classes of 2013 & 2015 a lot in common.
For me, the C/O 2008 were the coolest. I made friends when they were seniors and I didn't have any problems at all. One of their slogans was "Don't hate '08" C/O 2009, they were awesome as well. I liked one of their slogans that said "So fine, oh nine"  ;D and I made friends with them. During their senior year, the football team won the homecoming game and it was off the hook. I think they went into overtime and won with a touchdown. C/O 2010, since I known them for so long, we clearly got along very well and I have many friends with that class along with mine. During their senior year, they had a slogan saying 'Seniors say relax"

Looking back, the vibe of my freshman, sophomore and junior years were different compared to my senior year. Every year, there was a new dance such as the Superman, Stanky Legg, The Jerk and The Dougie. Electropop was in full force where almost every artist had songs of that genre during that year. The fashion was colorful and bright. All consoles now had motion-control controllers and not just the Wii. Technology was accelerating. The environment was so upbeat that there was a positive influence everywhere in the world. It's crazy to now think that was 6 years ago and is almost close to being dated.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 1:45 am


LOL wow  ;D

I feel like everyone who was in high school during 2008-09 school year is the same mini-generation. The last to remember Bush era politics, most planned their career path before the Great Recession and then had to take a U-Turn once the recession hit.  Then there was the whole Facebook/electropop/2000s backlash thing.

Stretching this theory further... We were all in elementary school by Y2K, we were all in the upper grades of elementary school when 9/11 happened, and we all had electropop on our prom nights.

We were also all in middle school (except C/O 2012) during the peak of the entire 2000s decade (2004-05 school year). For that reason, I'll call us the "American Idiot generation" after the Green Day song  ;D Though like I said, class of 09 can go with the previous classes as well.


The fact that you take pride in being the "American Idiot generation".... My god... I just don't know what to say...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 6:10 am


This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Although for me, I had already planned to be an artist and didn't have to change my career. For prom, that's correct as when I went, they were playing songs of that genre nonstop along with some R&B and Hip-Hop.

That song was released as soon as the school year began and I heard it on the radio along with their other song Boulevard of Broken Dreams
;D ;D ;D ;D


That song was my jam!


The fact that you take pride in being the "American Idiot generation".... My god... I just don't know what to say...


It's a good album.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: TheKid99 on 05/15/16 at 6:32 am


You could remember 9/11 as a late 1999 baby? Damn, that's awesome.

Yeah, I guess it is. All I can remember is being in my high chair in my old house's kitchen and I looked at the TV and I guess it was the helicopter view from the NY Harbor and I remember seeing two what I thought were like smokestacks billowing out smoke and burning. That's all I remember.

My brothers remember it much better. Jake remembered it very well because his birthday was on September 10th. My brother John remembers it picture clear and he wanted to go to West Point after that, though, obviously, he was too young. From what I had heard from my mom, we were all watching Barney & Friends when my mom got a call from my dad who was watching it on TV and hearing it on the radio at his school. My mom turned on the TV and she turned it on right when the second tower got hit. She went to another room and was hysterical. We all later went to a prayer service at our local church, my brothers did not go to preschool for 3 days after 9/11. My grandparents had just gotten home from Las Vegas, so they were safe, but my Uncle Tim was stuck in Las Vegas for four days since he had to fly home from Las Vegas on 9/11.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 6:55 am


It's a good album.


http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/imagecache/Node_Page/images/1289577375268.jpg

Bruce Willis disagrees and I'm with him all the way. American Idiot is one of the worst things ever released; I absolutely cannot stand that album in any way at all.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 9:13 am


http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/imagecache/Node_Page/images/1289577375268.jpg

Bruce Willis disagrees and I'm with him all the way. American Idiot is one of the worst things ever released; I absolutely cannot stand that album in any way at all.


http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/imagecache/Node_Page/images/1289577375268.jpg

Who cares about Bruce Willis. It was such a good album, you had American Idiot, Boulevard of Broken Dreams, Wake Me Up When September Ends, Jesus of Suburbia, Holiday... Perfect album, everyone listened to it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 9:35 am


http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/imagecache/Node_Page/images/1289577375268.jpg

Who cares about Bruce Willis. It was such a good album, you had American Idiot, Boulevard of Broken Dreams, Wake Me Up When September Ends, Jesus of Suburbia, Holiday... Perfect album, everyone listened to it.


It was like 2004's anthem album, to be precise.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 11:58 am


It was like 2004's anthem album, to be precise.


Yep the 2004 US and Canadian elections were the first I followed too (my brother got to shake the Prime Minister's hand, so jelly). The song brings back all sorts of memories ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 7:20 pm


http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/imagecache/Node_Page/images/1289577375268.jpg

Who cares about Bruce Willis. It was such a good album, you had American Idiot, Boulevard of Broken Dreams, Wake Me Up When September Ends, Jesus of Suburbia, Holiday... Perfect album, everyone listened to it.


Bruce Willis is rad, have you not seen Die Hard? Pretty sweet movie! American Idiot, on the other hand, is far from perfect. It's one of the worst albums ever released. There is no good hooks or anything. It's just a buncha melodramatic teenage MySpace whining that makes no sense and the story is just a cheap rip off of the far superior Zen Arcade. Not to mention it's not even a political album aside from two poorly written songs but, you know, gotta sell a product!!!


It was like 2004's anthem album, to be precise.


Even worse!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 7:21 pm


Even worse!


A lot of people still liked Green Day in 2004.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 7:22 pm


A lot of people still liked Green Day in 2004.


You mean "Green Day gained a lot of new fans in 2004" because most of the people I know who got into through Dookie absolutely hate that album just as much as I do.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 7:26 pm


You mean "Green Day gained a lot of new fans in 2004" because most of the people I know who got into through Dookie absolutely hate that album just as much as I do.


Or maybe they hated that album because they didn't have taste for post-2004 albums.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 7:29 pm


Or maybe they hated that album because they didn't have taste for post-2004 albums.


That album in particular is something completely different from what we all originally got into Green Day for back in the 90's. Compare AI/21st/Trilogy to everything before it. It's a totally different band.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 7:31 pm


That album in particular is something completely different from what we all originally got into Green Day for back in the 90's. Compare AI/21st/Trilogy to everything before it. It's a totally different band.


It still sounded alright from people who were born in the 80s and early 90s, when the album was released.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 7:35 pm


It still sounded alright from people who were born in the 80s and early 90s, when the album was released.


According to what source? ???

If you were born in the early 90's you were in high school when that came out and probably liked it because it was trendy but I'm not even talking about them. What early-mid 80's borns like that album? I'm sure there's a small amount but I don't know anyone who got into Dookie and also likes anything AI-onward.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 7:36 pm


Bruce Willis is rad, have you not seen Die Hard? Pretty sweet movie! American Idiot, on the other hand, is far from perfect. It's one of the worst albums ever released. There is no good hooks or anything. It's just a buncha melodramatic teenage MySpace whining that makes no sense and the story is just a cheap rip off of the far superior Zen Arcade. Not to mention it's not even a political album aside from two poorly written songs but, you know, gotta sell a product!!!

Even worse!


"Whachoo talkin' about Willis?"

I want to see Boulevard of Broken Dreams live. Jesus of Suburbia is such a fine song.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 7:36 pm


According to what source? ???

If you were born in the early 90's you were in high school when that came out and probably liked it because it was trendy but I'm not even talking about them. What early-mid 80's borns like that album? I'm sure there's a small amount but I don't know anyone who got into Dookie and also likes anything AI-onward.


Those early-mid 80s babies who still liked the pop culture after 2004. Not every one of them hated pop culture from 2004-2009.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 7:39 pm


Those early-mid 80s babies who still liked the pop culture after 2004. Not every one of them hated pop culture from 2004-2009.


But I'm not even talking about pop culture in general, I'm specifically focusing on Green Day's career.


"Whachoo talkin' about Willis?"

I want to see Boulevard of Broken Dreams live. Jesus of Suburbia is such a fine song.


...Why... ???

I've seen Green Day live so many times back in the day. Man, they were incredible. Now? I wouldn't pay a nickel to see them because they suck.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 7:44 pm


But I'm not even talking about pop culture in general, I'm specifically focusing on Green Day's career.


Green Day was still likeable in 2004, IMO. They made the mid 2000s looked cool.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 7:45 pm


Green Day was still likeable in 2004, IMO. They made the mid 2000s looked cool.


I disagree. They made the mid 00s a lot worse. Green Day was one of the coolest bands in the 90's and early 00s. When 2004 hit they ruined their legacy with all that makeup and black clothing crap.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 7:46 pm


Green Day was still likeable in 2004, IMO. They made the mid 2000s looked cool.


I liked 21st Century Breakdown as well, which came out 2009. The song "Last of the American Girls" is soo good.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 7:47 pm


I disagree. They made the mid 00s a lot worse. Green Day was one of the coolest bands in the 90's and early 00s. When 2004 hit they ruined their legacy with all that makeup and black clothing crap.


lol. That sh*t still made Green Day look alright, compared to what the 2010s have to offer. At least Green Day gave out diversity for rock music back then, even in 2004.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 7:48 pm


I liked 21st Century Breakdown as well, which came out 2009. The song "Last of the American Girls" is soo good.


Anything that was rock music from the mid-late 2000s are cool in my book.  ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 7:49 pm


Anything that was rock music from the mid-late 2000s are cool in my book.  ;)


Everything pre-2003/2004 in mine. ;)


lol. That sh*t still made Green Day look alright, compared to what the 2010s have to offer. At least Green Day gave out diversity for rock music back then, even in 2004.


I really wouldn't say so. Among all the Panics, Fall Out Boys and My Chemical Romances, they sounded like every other rock band in the 00's.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 7:52 pm


Everything pre-2003/2004 in mine. ;)

I really wouldn't say so. Among all the Panics, Fall Out Boys and My Chemical Romances, they sounded like every other rock band in the 00's.


All those bands have their own sound, even if they're the same genre.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 7:56 pm


All those bands have their own sound, even if they're the same genre.


They all sound the same to me. :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 8:01 pm


I really wouldn't say so. Among all the Panics, Fall Out Boys and My Chemical Romances, they sounded like every other rock band in the 00's.


They sounded different in the 2000s. It's just that electronica is ruining their legacy, IMO.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 8:03 pm


They sounded different in the 2000s. It's just that electronica is ruining their legacy, IMO.


I mean if you went back to 2005 and listened to all those bands, not their current day sounds. Green Day hasn't changed their sound all that much since AI, however.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 8:06 pm


I mean if you went back to 2005 and listened to all those bands, not their current day sounds. Green Day hasn't changed their sound all that much since AI, however.


Yeah, Green Day still sounded like themselves in 2004 with their recent albums. But they didn't change drastically compared to Fall Out Boy.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 8:09 pm


I liked 21st Century Breakdown as well, which came out 2009. The song "Last of the American Girls" is soo good.


That's one of the worst songs off the album. Man, soooo boring.


Yeah, Green Day still sounded like themselves in 2004 with their recent albums. But they didn't change drastically compared to Fall Out Boy.


Green Day took on a new sound in 2004 compared to their older works. It's like a totally different band compared to Dookie.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 8:12 pm


They all sound the same to me. :P


My Chemical Romance like to scream a lot, Fall Out Boy don't make sense, Panic has cheesey lyrics.


That's one of the worst songs off the album. Man, soooo boring.


The lyrics are awesome!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 8:14 pm


My Chemical Romance like to scream a lot, Fall Out Boy don't make sense, Panic has cheesey lyrics.


All their lyrics are pretty cheesy and make no sense and Fall Out Boy also have screams.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 8:15 pm


All their lyrics are pretty cheesy and make no sense and Fall Out Boy also have screams.


MCR scream the whole thing, Fall Out Boy just scream every now and then.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 8:16 pm


Green Day took on a new sound in 2004 compared to their older works. It's like a totally different band compared to Dookie.


Post-2004 Green Day FTW!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 8:19 pm


Post-2004 Green Day FTW!


Pre-2003 Green Day is the best. You can't beat the sweet sounds of Dookie, one of the greatest albums of the 90's. ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/15/16 at 8:21 pm


Green Day took on a new sound in 2004 compared to their older works. It's like a totally different band compared to Dookie.



Pre-2003 Green Day is the best. You can't beat the sweet sounds of Dookie, one of the greatest albums of the 90's. ;)

What about their 1997 and 2000 albums?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 8:21 pm


Pre-2003 Green Day is the best. You can't beat the sweet sounds of Dookie, one of the greatest albums of the 90's. ;)


Dookie kinda sounds the same as American Idiot.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 8:25 pm


What about their 1997 and 2000 albums?


nimrod and Warning are good, too. They're the last of the real Green Day.


Dookie kinda sounds the same as American Idiot.


How? The songwriting, lyrics and structures of the songs are totally different from each other.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 8:28 pm


How? The songwriting, lyrics and structures of the songs are totally different from each other.


Wait, you were talking about the lyrics? Oh, how I never known that. *sarcasm*

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 8:30 pm


Wait, you were talking about the lyrics? Oh, how I never known that. *sarcasm*


https://m.popkey.co/f62efd/WW7lq.gif

No, you didn't read the entire post. That's only one element. If you look at the songwriting and structures of the songs, it's totally different from Dookie. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/15/16 at 8:32 pm


nimrod and Warning are good, too. They're the last of the real Green Day.
Had they made their infamous album a year or two earlier, would you have liked it?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 8:32 pm


Had they made their infamous album a year or two earlier, would you have liked it?


Not at all. If it came out in 2000-2002 it would of ruined the early 00s for me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 8:33 pm


https://m.popkey.co/f62efd/WW7lq.gif

No, you didn't read the entire post. That's only one element. If you look at the songwriting and structures of the songs, it's totally different from Dookie.


Yeah, but I still don't care about those either. They both sound the same to me. Even if they were made 10 years apart.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 8:34 pm


Yeah, but I still don't care about those either. They both sound the same to me. Even if they were made 10 years apart.


Well, how do they sound the same?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 8:34 pm


Not at all. If it came out in 2000-2002 it would of ruined the early 00s for me.


Damn. You're sometimes sensitive over your precious Xtreme! music. And I thought I already defended my likes over mid-late 2000s music from you countless times.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 8:35 pm


Well, how do they sound the same?


The guitarist, singer, and the songwriting sounds the same to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/15/16 at 8:38 pm


Not at all. If it came out in 2000-2002 it would of ruined the early 00s for me.
Are you serious? :o. Are you forgetting the pre-emo and no Iraq war at that time?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 8:45 pm


Are you serious? :o. Are you forgetting the pre-emo and no Iraq war at that time?


If that album came out in 2000-2002, faux-Emo would of happened a lot earlier or Green Day's career would of been done with. Still, if one of my all time favorite bands released that album in 2000-2002 instead of releasing Warning and doing their regular tours during those three years, I would of been really disappointed (as I was in 2004). The year it came out doesn't change my disappointment. 


Damn. You're sometimes sensitive over your precious Xtreme! music. And I thought I already defended my likes over mid-late 2000s music from you countless times.


It's true! American Idiot ruined Green Day for me, the time it came out doesn't matter.


The guitarist, singer, and the songwriting sounds the same to me.


Well, the guitars and singing style are pretty different on both albums. The guitar's on Dookie are tuned to Eb whereas AI is in E standard and on AI it sounds like Billie Joe is singing from his diaphragm whereas with Dookie he's singing straight from the nose.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 8:47 pm


Well, the guitars and singing style are pretty different on both albums. The guitar's on Dookie are tuned to Eb whereas AI is in E standard and on AI it sounds like Billie Joe is singing from his diaphragm whereas with Dookie he's singing straight from the nose.


Billie Joe still sounded cool in American Idiot.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 8:48 pm


Billie Joe still sounded cool in American Idiot.


I prefer his Dookie style of singing. His singing style hasn't changed at all since 2004.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/15/16 at 8:50 pm


If that album came out in 2000-2002, faux-Emo would of happened a lot earlier or Green Day's career would of been done with. Still, if one of my all time favorite bands released that album in 2000-2002 instead of releasing Warning and doing their regular tours during those three years, I would of been really disappointed (as I was in 2004). The year it came out doesn't change my disappointment.
But weren't the lyrics and the vibe different during the early 00s? What about having a good time and being wacky?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 8:56 pm


But weren't the lyrics and the vibe different during the early 00s? What about having a good time and being wacky?


Yes, they were but say, for example, there's an alternate universe where Green Day released AI in 2000 or whatever. If the album caught on and became a big hit, it would of prematurely caused a shift in Pop Punk to the melodramatic mid 00s stuff. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/15/16 at 8:59 pm


Yes, they were but say, for example, there's an alternate universe where Green Day released AI in 2000 or whatever. If the album caught on and became a big hit, it would of prematurely caused a shift in Pop Punk to the melodramatic mid 00s stuff.
So if the album was released during Clinton's last year and before 9/11,  it would have caused a huge shift?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 9:00 pm


Yes, they were but say, for example, there's an alternate universe where Green Day released AI in 2000 or whatever. If the album caught on and became a big hit, it would of prematurely caused a shift in Pop Punk to the melodramatic mid 00s stuff.


But early 2000s culture would've been established by then. There's no way that it could cause a shift from the mid 2000s by then.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 9:03 pm


So if the album was released during Clinton's last year and before 9/11,  it would have caused a huge shift?


Yes, it's definitely possible. Though, I think if AI came out anything before 2004, it might of been a flop but it's hard to say without it actually happening. If one of my favorite bands released an album that terrible in the early 00s, it would of ruined it for me. Green Day were still incredible back then.


But early 2000s culture would've been established by then. There's no way that it could cause a shift from the mid 2000s by then.


It doesn't matter when the culture's established or not. I'm using an example that if released in an alternate universe in 2000, it might of had enough influence to cause a shift in rock music.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/15/16 at 9:08 pm


Yes, it's definitely possible. Though, I think if AI came out anything before 2004, it might of been a flop but it's hard to say without it actually happening. If one of my favorite bands released an album that terrible in the early 00s, it would of ruined it for me. Green Day were still incredible back then.
But wasn't the album about the stupid decision of heading into Iraq for a pointless war? If it had been released in 2000, which was before some of the factors I listed, the album would have been under a different name and totally different.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 9:10 pm


But wasn't the album about the stupid decision of heading into Iraq for a pointless war? If it had been released in 2000, which was before some of the factors I listed, the album would have been under a different name and totally different.


Yes, but say the sound and image stayed the same. If Green Day focused more on telling melodramatic stories and wearing makeup. That possibly could of caused a shift.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/15/16 at 9:13 pm


Yes, but say the sound and image stayed the same. If Green Day focused more on telling melodramatic stories and wearing makeup. That possibly could of caused a shift.
So in this alternate universe, you would hated the early 00s just because of that album?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 9:13 pm


But early 2000s culture would've been established by then. There's no way that it could cause a shift from the mid 2000s by then.


Well, Green Day is pretty influential, so I guess a lot of bands could have followed them. Though honestly, other than the political and serious themes, it doesn't all that different from 2002/2003 songs to me.  ;D You'll see the album in practically every "Early 2000s rock" playlist.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 9:15 pm


Well, Green Day is pretty influential, so I guess a lot of bands could have followed them. Though honestly, other than the political and serious themes, it doesn't all that different from 2002/2003 songs to me.  ;D You'll see the album in practically every "Early 2000s rock" playlist.


How is it at all like 2002 songs!?!? 2002 songs used Epi-Fat skate riffs and drum beats! 2003, maybe, but not 2002!


So in this alternate universe, you would hated the early 00s just because of that album?


Maybe. It depends on how the other elements of the early 00s would be affected.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 9:18 pm


Yes, but say the sound and image stayed the same. If Green Day focused more on telling melodramatic stories and wearing makeup. That possibly could of caused a shift.


But it wouldn't make American Idiot important to what it standed for.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 9:19 pm


How is it at all like 2002 songs!?!? 2002 songs used Epi-Fat skate riffs and drum beats! 2003, maybe, but not 2002!

Maybe. It depends on how the other elements of the early 00s would be affected.


It's still undeniably a pop punk album. I wouldn't call it a Myspace emo album.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 9:22 pm


But it wouldn't make American Idiot important to what it standed for.


American Idiot was only advertised as a political album. It's not very political at all aside from two songs. Green Day is still a very influential band and if they changed their style early on, they might of caused a shift.


It's still undeniably a pop punk album. I wouldn't call it a Myspace emo album.


I would. It's undeniably a mid-late 00s Pop Punk album but it's a lot different than the late 90's/early 00's albums that came out before it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/15/16 at 9:23 pm


Maybe. It depends on how the other elements of the early 00s would be affected.
Oh so the fashion could have changed and the atmosphere as those two would mainly be impacted.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 9:23 pm


Oh so the fashion could have changed and the atmosphere as those two would mainly be impacted.


Yep, that's exactly it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 9:24 pm


American Idiot was only advertised as a political album. It's not very political at all aside from two songs. Green Day is still a very influential band and if they changed their style early on, they might of caused a shift.

I would. It's undeniably a mid-late 00s Pop Punk album but it's a lot different than the late 90's/early 00's albums that came out before it.


What about it is emo, lyrically? It's not depressing at all. If anything, it's more punk than most pop punk, since it actually talks about real issues and contrary opinions that can offend people.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/15/16 at 9:28 pm


Yep, that's exactly it.
Now i see. How about, if GD had released another album before AI and after Warning, would their style stayed the same?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 9:30 pm


What about it is emo, lyrically? It's not depressing at all. If anything, it's more punk than most pop punk, since it actually talks about real issues and contrary opinions that can offend people.  ;D


Blvd is a shining example of how whiny and annoying it is. It's super melodramatic and the story is a bland rip off of Husker Du's superior Zen Arcade. It's not Punk at all. Holiday and American Idiot are the only songs that are somewhat political and they're extremely vague with their blanket Bush hating statements. It's not a very offensive or contrarian album, either. People seem to think Punk is all about politics when it really isn't, that's only one side of it. Punk is more about DIY and kids making records in their garages. Listen to some Ramones, Operation Ivy and Minor Threat and compare it to AI. You will see it's not at all Punk. :P

It also doesn't sound like the early 00s, either.


Now i see. How about, if GD had released another album before AI and after Warning, would their style stayed the same?


They planned to. It was called Cigarettes and Valentines and was in the style of Dookie. They ended up scrapping it and started working on American Idiot.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/15/16 at 9:34 pm


They planned to. It was called Cigarettes and Valentines and was in the style of Dookie. They ended up scrapping it and started working on American Idiot.
did they scrap it because of the Iraq decision?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 9:38 pm


American Idiot was only advertised as a political album. It's not very political at all aside from two songs. Green Day is still a very influential band and if they changed their style early on, they might of caused a shift.


But if the album was released before the Iraq War, then it would sound different.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 9:50 pm


did they scrap it because of the Iraq decision?


They scrapped it because they were unhappy with the sound and wanted to try something different.


But if the album was released before the Iraq War, then it would sound different.


Huh? How would it sound different? The Iraq War only influenced the marketing and two songs on the album. It had nothing to do with how it sounded.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 9:59 pm


Blvd is a shining example of how whiny and annoying it is. It's super melodramatic and the story is a bland rip off of Husker Du's superior Zen Arcade. It's not Punk at all. Holiday and American Idiot are the only songs that are somewhat political and they're extremely vague with their blanket Bush hating statements. It's not a very offensive or contrarian album, either. People seem to think Punk is all about politics when it really isn't, that's only one side of it. Punk is more about DIY and kids making records in their garages. Listen to some Ramones, Operation Ivy and Minor Threat and compare it to AI. You will see it's not at all Punk. :P

It also doesn't sound like the early 00s, either.

They planned to. It was called Cigarettes and Valentines and was in the style of Dookie. They ended up scrapping it and started working on American Idiot.


Boulevard isn't whiny, it's badass! Most pop punk is way more whiny than Boulevard. Jesus of Suburbia is political too, they ethered a lot of George Bush suburbia, and don't tell me that's not controversial.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/15/16 at 9:59 pm


Huh? How would it sound different? The Iraq War only influenced the marketing and two songs on the album. It had nothing to do with how it sounded.


American Idiot was the lead song for the album, so it would sound different. Not to mention that the cover was heavily inspiring our society from their political music. So, it would be very different if the Iraq War never happened.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 10:32 pm


Boulevard isn't whiny, it's badass! Most pop punk is way more whiny than Boulevard. Jesus of Suburbia is political too, they ethered a lot of George Bush suburbia, and don't tell me that's not controversial.


No way! All he's doing is whining about how he walks alone when his band mates are right there in the video! Jesus of Suburbia is not political, it's the starting point of the album where St. Jimmy (ugh...) decides he's sick of his town and suburbia life and begins to run away from home. Nothing to do with Dubya.


American Idiot was the lead song for the album, so it would sound different. Not to mention that the cover was heavily inspiring our society from their political music. So, it would be very different if the Iraq War never happened.


Ok and? Aside from Holiday, it's the only political song on the album. The songs would probably sound the same but with slightly different lyrics. Once again, their music was not political on that album at all aside from two songs. Read the lyrics, you'll see for yourself that the album is more about the story of St. Jimmy rather than the "evils" of Dubya. It wouldn't be different as the story is largely derived from the superior Zen Arcade by Husker Du and not really political in general. They decided to market it as a political protest against Bush but that's really deceptive as it's not anything like that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/15/16 at 11:10 pm


No way! All he's doing is whining about how he walks alone when his band mates are right there in the video! Jesus of Suburbia is not political, it's the starting point of the album where St. Jimmy (ugh...) decides he's sick of his town and suburbia life and begins to run away from home. Nothing to do with Dubya.

Ok and? Aside from Holiday, it's the only political song on the album. The songs would probably sound the same but with slightly different lyrics. Once again, their music was not political on that album at all aside from two songs. Read the lyrics, you'll see for yourself that the album is more about the story of St. Jimmy rather than the "evils" of Dubya. It wouldn't be different as the story is largely derived from the superior Zen Arcade by Husker Du and not really political in general. They decided to market it as a political protest against Bush but that's really deceptive as it's not anything like that.


Walking alone is badass! He's not whining. Whining is I'm Just a Kid by Simple Plan or Motivation by Sum 41 :P

It doesn't have to be about Dubya to be political. It's still a critique of society in general from the perspective of a teen boy, living in a broken home, broken city etc. That's more deep than most punk is willing to go

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/15/16 at 11:28 pm


Walking alone is badass! He's not whining. Whining is I'm Just a Kid by Simple Plan or Motivation by Sum 41 :P

It doesn't have to be about Dubya to be political. It's still a critique of society in general from the perspective of a teen boy, living in a broken home, broken city etc. That's more deep than most punk is willing to go


Total whining! I'm Just a Kid is pretty whiny (but it's got good hooky melodies) but Motivation is just about being lazy. :P

Then it's more of a social-commentary but I guess you could argue that's still political. It's not a critique of society, if you read the lyrics. They have nothing to do with the struggles of modern times at all. It's more of a from point A to B paint by numbers story of a fictional kid who's sick of his fictional suburb, moves out, then realizing he ain't worth sh!t, moves back home. That's it! There's nothing else to it! It tries to hard to be "gutter punx" and fails. It's a total rip off of Husker Du's Zen Arcade (a punk album which is far better written than AI) and Who albums like Tommy and Quadrophenia (also much better written). A good amount of Punk does talk about those kinds of issues, though. I don't see how American Idiot is so deep and thought-provoking while apparently actual Punk just skims the surface... ??? If you mean, Pop Punk then I can kind of see your point but American Idiot is not a deep album at all.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/16/16 at 8:47 pm


They scrapped it because they were unhappy with the sound and wanted to try something different.
Why were they upset with their sound? Isn't that the style that made them popular in the first place?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/16/16 at 9:03 pm


Why were they upset with their sound? Isn't that the style that made them popular in the first place?


There were a lot of fights in the band during that period and they were feeling pretty dim about where their future was headed involving their careers so once the album was finished they felt like it was half-assed and started over.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/16/16 at 9:15 pm


There were a lot of fights in the band during that period and they were feeling pretty dim about where their future was headed involving their careers so once the album was finished they felt like it was half-assed and started over.
Was this the Warning album?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/16/16 at 9:17 pm


Was this the Warning album?


No, the album after Warning. It was supposed to be called Cigarettes and Valentines.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/16/16 at 9:23 pm


No, the album after Warning. It was supposed to be called Cigarettes and Valentines.
Oh that's right. I got confused for some reason. Had that album worked out and been released, do you think AI after that would have never been made?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/16/16 at 10:01 pm


Oh that's right. I got confused for some reason. Had that album worked out and been released, do you think AI after that would have never been made?


Possibly but I think the chances would be thin. If that album came out and was a huge success it might of brought the optimism back to the band and they wouldn't of felt the need to reinvent themselves. On the flip side, it could of been a major flop (but the time it was made was the prime time for Pop Punk releases so I very highly doubt it would of ever flopped. It might of actually have been a universal success. It's Green Day! The Offspring had major success during that time and I believe Green Day would of had no trouble catching up) but I think if it that was the case then they're probably have just broken up due to hopelessness.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/18/16 at 1:38 pm


Possibly but I think the chances would be thin. If that album came out and was a huge success it might of brought the optimism back to the band and they wouldn't of felt the need to reinvent themselves. On the flip side, it could of been a major flop (but the time it was made was the prime time for Pop Punk releases so I very highly doubt it would of ever flopped. It might of actually have been a universal success. It's Green Day! The Offspring had major success during that time and I believe Green Day would of had no trouble catching up) but I think if it that was the case then they're probably have just broken up due to hopelessness.
Just imagine the success that album would have had, it pretty much could have prevented them making AI and thus possibly making Pop-Punk stay longer.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 05/19/16 at 3:03 am


Not at my school. We grew up with each other. Listened to the same music, wore similar clothes & fashion, watched the same TV shows, etc.

I'd argue that I felt a huge difference between Class of 2012 and Class of 2013. Going by how different the school felt by my junior year compared to my freshman & sophomore years.

I think it's all a suggestive opinion depending on where you grew up.


In my first three years of high school, I lived in the Western region of the United States. Then during the summer vacation following Junior year my family moved to the Southwest where I spent my senior year and reside today.

I don't think the Class of 2012 is different from the Class of 2013 at all. As a matter of fact, that graduating class is earliest group to have anything in common with us at all. Class of 2012 are the first early 2010's teens, both culturally and chronologically. They may have started high school in 2008, but most of their high school years were in the 2010s.

Location is crucial, but I also believe it's a matter of the community that you're born into. The White community and the African-American community have different cultures. Black culture is mainly urban-centric, with the community typically listening to rap these days, and for the older folks, soul and gospel. White culture is more suburban-based, and these people mostly listen to rock and dance. These cultures also cross over, more black culture integrating itself into white culture than vice versa, but it is mutual to some degree or another. In my first high school, the student body primarily consisted of Whites and Native Americans, and pretty much no other races. My second high school was a lot more diverse, and a lot more interesting; the student body consisted of White people, Latinos (primarily Mexicans), African-Americans, Native Americans, and even Asians (from all regions of the continent). Suffice to say, there was a definite change in environment alright!

For example: Can you seriously imagine a teenage black girl wearing a plaid button-down with ripped black skinny jeans, red vans, and a Hot Topic t-shirt while listening to Imagine Dragons? I sure can't. However, you can imagine a white girl wearing Karl Kani and Rocawear while jamming out to Drake in her car. Seeing a young black woman wearing a crushed velvet leopard-print tank top from American Apparel with a black miniskirt, fishnet hosiery, and lace-up motorcycle boots while heading over to a festival to see Calvin Harris is also not a rare predicament. Crossover cultures do happen, and it also depends on what exactly it is crossing over. Depending on what crosses over at what point in time, it can cause a culture shift between two groups of people only a year apart in age.


I agree, the Class of 2011 & 2012 at my high school were VERY similar to each other. They made the high school fun my freshman and sophomore years, but I thought 2011 was slightly more entertaining, and felt like leaders, role models, and celebrities. While the Class of 2012 had a lot of smart people, but some folks on drugs or steroids at the same time. I had a lot of good friends in the Class of 2013, but the school felt kinda lame by then, A.K.A. my junior year. Our Class of 2014 was epic though, but I feel like we relate to the classes of 2013 & 2015 a lot in common.


In the region that I lived in at the time, 9th grade was considered Junior High. They'd pair you up with the high schoolers when it came to sports. I never interacted with the Class of 2011 except at places like festivals and what have you, so I can't say what they were like. I did find Class of 2012 to be really fun. They were very warm and welcoming and generally a lot more relaxed than Class of 2013. I found them to be neurotic and kind of bratty.  8-P  From what I have noticed about earlier graduating classes, the Class of 2012 was exactly like the Class of 2013. They're pretty much the oldest people to appreciate Indie, R&B, and Electronic Dance Music, even although they didn't get into it until it became officially mainstream.

Class of 2015, on the other hand, definitely have a lot in common with us. We naturally got along and we were paired up together a lot in school events. We were interested in the exact same things.


Are you joking? What culture shift are you talking bout?! 2013 and 2014 go together imo.
Give me some examples on how 2013 class was different than the 14 class...... :o


???  No, I'm not joking. You want some examples? I'll be happy to explain.

Well first of all, we have completely different tastes. Back in high school, Class of 2013 pretty much only listened to electropop and rap, but little else. They also didn't wear anything other than those obnoxious logo t-shirts (in bright colors of course), printed hoodies (sometime full-zip!!), uber-tight skinny jeans, and Supra high-tops. We, however, were so much more diverse. We killed electropop and forced rap to change. We embraced Indie, R&B, and Electronic Dance Music. We even embraced the subgenres within these larger genres. We brought back pants that actually sit on your waist and loosened them up a bit. We ignored neon colors in favor of minimalism, tartan, and tribal prints. Hoodies were replaced with puffer vests, leather jackets, and knit sweaters; and high-tops were replaced with low-tops and basketball shoes. See where I'm going here? Yes, the people who graduated high school 1-2 years before us adapted, but only after these trends had solidified in the mainstream. They sure weren't fans of them when they were coming up! Class of 2014 were the initiators–we were responsible for bringing up everything that is cool today. Long story short, Class of 2013 was the last of the "old", while Class of 2014 was the beginning of the "new". Not of a generation, but a cohort of the same one.

Honestly, the reason why I firmly believe my statement is because of personal experience. Based on everyone that I know in real life (and even most people that I have met on the internet), I've come to the conclusion that the average person's senior year of high school and freshman year of college are their favorite years for music as well as the peak of their interest in popular culture, with the year of their high school graduation being the center of it all. Just talk to anyone about the year they graduated high school, for instance, and they'll instantly reminisce on that year with incredible fondness (unless they had an unusually bad senior year). Heck, just look at the people on this board! I love 2014. Slim95 loves 2013. #Infinity and Slowpoke love 2010 and 2011. JordanK1982 loves 2000. What do they all have in common? The years that they graduated high school/when their senior year occurred. Even mqg96 admitted his senior year was epic!

Second, and just as important, we were both early 2010's teens, but of completely different breeds. The Class of 2013 are pure early 2010's teens. They started high school in the fall of 2009 and graduated in the spring of 2013. It doesn't get any more early 2010's than that. Class of 2014, on the other hand, are early to mid 2010's teens. If you divide the decade by the calendar, our first three years of high school were in the early portion of the decade, while our senior year was in the middle part. It isn't just chronologically, but culturally as well. You can also apply this to any decade as well. Just replace the 2010's with the 1990's and the layout is exactly the same.

Speaking of whom, I do also notice a large difference in tastes between the Class of 1993 and the Class of 1994, going by everyone that I have met in real life. Based on the people I know, the Class of 1993 liked listening to House, New Jack Swing, Pop Rock, and Old School Rap–that screams early '90s. They were very pop music-oriented. Class of 1994, however, liked Grunge, Gangsta Rap, Eurodance, and Hip-Hop Soul. They were much more genre-based in their music. Class of 1993 are pure early '90s teens, while Class of 1994 are early-to-mid '90s teens (while still leaning more towards the early '90s). The 1994 high school graduates worshipped Nirvana and the Red Hot Chili Peppers while wearing their flannel with band t-shirts and smoking cannabis; Class of 1993 didn't care for that. Seriously, I don't know anyone who graduated high school in 1993 that enjoys grunge, although I'm up for enlightenment if someone does.


Agreed man! Where I went to, the 2013 and 15 classes were JUST like us! Though I'd group in the 2015 class with the 16 class, but that's just me. ;)


Actually, I think the Class of 2015 was exactly like us, not the Class of 2013. The 2012-13 school year was defined by completely different trends from the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years. 2012-2013 was pure early 2010s both culturally and chronologically, and 2013-2014 was very much a separate era from it. As a matter of fact, our senior year was defined by the exact same trends as the Class of 2015's senior year. We have so much in common. Whenever I'm engaging in conversation with someone who graduated high school a year after I did, it's like I'm looking in a mirror–we're so similar. The most special people in my life are from the Classes of 2014 and 2015, and I think there's a good reason for that.


Class of 2016 felt completely different than 2015 IMO. I can't speak for Class of 2017, since I barely talked to them my senior year other than the members on my cross country team.


Yeah, the Class of 2016 did feel completely different from the Class of 2015. They're a lot more biting and sarcastic, although this is really just more of a personality thing. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they like the same things as us. I don't know them too well. I actually see the 2014, 2015, and 2016 graduates as the "early-to-mid" 2010's teens, with C/O 2014 leaning more towards the early 2010's (75/25), C/O 2015 being equal (50/50), and C/O 2016 leaning more towards the mid 2010's (25/75).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/19/16 at 3:50 am

I guess it depends on how you raised, and what you're experiences are.... Class of 2013 felt just like me, and 15 did too. 2012 class had A LOT in common with me, but they were still similar to the 11 class! Overall I view 1993-1997 born as my main peers anyway. :)
2013 was BY FAR my fav year of my HS days not 14.... I was glad to get outta there by that point! 8-P

Everybody's experiences are different. ;) and a mid 10s teen... barely ::) ; but I see what you sayin. ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/19/16 at 3:52 am


I don't think the Class of 2012 is different from the Class of 2013 at all. As a matter of fact, that graduating class is earliest group to have anything in common with us at all. Class of 2012 are the first early 2010's teens, both culturally and chronologically. They may have started high school in 2008, but most of their high school years were in the 2010s.

What are your thoughts on the 2011 class? Do you think we have anything in common at ALL with the 2010 and 11 classes? Cause I have tons of friends who graduated from that time, and they don't feel DRAMATICALLY different. They do feel a slightly more old school tho.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/19/16 at 4:01 am



Yeah, the Class of 2016 did feel completely different from the Class of 2015. They're a lot more biting and sarcastic, although this is really just more of a personality thing. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they like the same things as us. I don't know them too well. I actually see the 2014, 2015, and 2016 graduates as the "early-to-mid" 2010's teens, with C/O 2014 leaning more towards the early 2010's (75/25), C/O 2015 being equal (50/50), and C/O 2016 leaning more towards the mid 2010's (25/75).

Good point. They are the first true mid 10s teenagers!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 05/19/16 at 4:32 am

R.I.P., Toon. It was nice to have you here, even though you weren't around for a long time. :\'(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/19/16 at 4:37 am


R.I.P., Toon. It was nice to have you here, even though you weren't around for a long time. :\'(

Wtf? :o Toon's gone oh no! :( That was an interesting dude to chat with! :\'(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/19/16 at 10:40 am


Just imagine the success that album would have had, it pretty much could have prevented them making AI and thus possibly making Pop-Punk stay longer.


I wish! That would be really cool if Pop Punk stayed true to itself throughout the 2000s thanks to Green Day making the right choices. I'd love it.


R.I.P., Toon. It was nice to have you here, even though you weren't around for a long time. :\'(


No way... Toon left? That sucks! He was a super rad poster. R.I.P., dude. :-\\

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/19/16 at 12:01 pm


R.I.P., Toon. It was nice to have you here, even though you weren't around for a long time. :\'(


I'd notice that a couple days ago. He and ocarinafan96 were some of the most interesting members on InThe00s. It's kinda lonely without them, since they used to make the forums a happier place. I'm sure most of you still make this site a happy place, but it's not the same if we're losing members.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 05/19/16 at 2:53 pm


Wtf? :o Toon's gone oh no! :( That was an interesting dude to chat with! :\'(


I agree.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 05/19/16 at 11:21 pm


Wtf? :o Toon's gone oh no! :( That was an interesting dude to chat with! :\'(


Yeah, I always enjoyed chatting with ocarinafan96 and Toon. Now they're both gone.  :-[

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: XYkid on 05/20/16 at 2:26 am

Why do us 1994 kids always get lumped in with 98/99 kids? I feel like I have way more in common with those born in 1989/90 than 1998/9.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/20/16 at 2:28 am


Why do us 1994 kids always get lumped in with 98/99 kids? I feel like I have way more in common with those born in 1989/90 than 1998/9.

Awww refreshing to see a 94 born on here!! :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/20/16 at 3:16 pm


Actually, I think the Class of 2015 was exactly like us, not the Class of 2013. The 2012-13 school year was defined by completely different trends from the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years. 2012-2013 was pure early 2010s both culturally and chronologically, and 2013-2014 was very much a separate era from it. As a matter of fact, our senior year was defined by the exact same trends as the Class of 2015's senior year. We have so much in common. Whenever I'm engaging in conversation with someone who graduated high school a year after I did, it's like I'm looking in a mirror–we're so similar. The most special people in my life are from the Classes of 2014 and 2015, and I think there's a good reason for that.


I'm gonna have to disagree with 2012-2013 school year being a pure early 2010's year culturally. From my experiences 2012-2013 was the transition from early 2010's to mid 2010's culturally, and by the 2013-2014 school year mid 2010's culture was in full effect. I think 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 school years were the most pure early 2010's school years culturally, with 2010-2011 being the absolute peak. The electropop era of music was over my the 2012-2013 school year and logo brand/bright colored T-shirts declined a lot throughout the 2012-2013 school year as well.

Also, I don't think the Class of 2013 and 2014 were completely different from each other as you're making it out to be. But I wouldn't be offended if someone was to tell me that the Class of 2014 was more related to 2015 than 2013. Some of the fashion trends you mentioned about the Class of 2013 like the bright colored logo T-shirts (especially Ralph Lauren Polo or American Eagle), printed hoodies, or Supra high-tops (or colorful Nike shoes similar to that), my friends and I followed completely my freshman and sophomore years of high school, heck even 8th grade too. Now the later fashion trends you mentioned we did in fact follow more our junior and seniors years of high school. I also remember when Timberland boots exploded around my junior year as well.

One more thing I must address, while the 2013-2014 school year may have been mid 2010's culturally by then, like in terms of fashion, music, and TV shows. I wouldn't say it was as pure mid 2010's as it is right now during the 2015-2016 school year, heck even with some things the 2014-2015 school year either despite the trends being nearly the same as 2013-2014. During the 2013-2014 school year, ISIS and terrorist attacks weren't as big of a thing as it's become as of lately, Donald Trump wasn't popular yet, there weren't as many police shootings (like Ferguson, MO or  Baltimore), the SJW or LGBT stuff weren't a major thing as it is now. So political and lifestyle wise, I would say the mid 2010's wasn't in full effect until 2014-2015, but with everything else like the fashion or music all of that were in full effect by 2013-2014. I would argue that our senior year of high school (2013-2014) was the last time things in society were still peaceful and upbeat before all of that stuff I mentioned started happening.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/20/16 at 3:26 pm


I guess it depends on how you raised, and what you're experiences are.... Class of 2013 felt just like me, and 15 did too. 2012 class had A LOT in common with me, but they were still similar to the 11 class! Overall I Everybody's experiences are different. ;) and a mid 10s teen... barely ::) ; but I see what you sayin. ;)


I will always consider myself as an early 2010's teenager. Yes, at my school district, there are 10 months in a school year, 2 months for the summer break. 4 years of high school x 10 = 40 months of your high school career. 30/40 months (freshman-junior) makes us 75% early 2010's teens, while 10/40 months of our senior year was 25% mid 2010's, all true, but it doesn't mean that the mid 2010's were a major part of our teen years when we were out of high school by summer 2014. I just go by age 14-17 being your peak teen years, with 11-13 being your preteen/early teen years and 18-20 being your late teen/early young adult years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/20/16 at 4:44 pm


I'm gonna have to disagree with 2012-2013 school year being a pure early 2010's year culturally. From my experiences 2012-2013 was the transition from early 2010's to mid 2010's culturally, and by the 2013-2014 school year mid 2010's culture was in full effect. I think 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 school years were the most pure early 2010's school years culturally, with 2010-2011 being the absolute peak. The electropop era of music was over my the 2012-2013 school year and logo brand/bright colored T-shirts declined a lot throughout the 2012-2013 school year as well.

Also, I don't think the Class of 2013 and 2014 were completely different from each other as you're making it out to be. But I wouldn't be offended if someone was to tell me that the Class of 2014 was more related to 2015 than 2013. Some of the fashion trends you mentioned about the Class of 2013 like the bright colored logo T-shirts (especially Ralph Lauren Polo or American Eagle), printed hoodies, or Supra high-tops (or colorful Nike shoes similar to that), my friends and I followed completely my freshman and sophomore years of high school, heck even 8th grade too. Now the later fashion trends you mentioned we did in fact follow more our junior and seniors years of high school. I also remember when Timberland boots exploded around my junior year as well.

One more thing I must address, while the 2013-2014 school year may have been mid 2010's culturally by then, like in terms of fashion, music, and TV shows. I wouldn't say it was as pure mid 2010's as it is right now during the 2015-2016 school year, heck even with some things the 2014-2015 school year either despite the trends being nearly the same as 2013-2014. During the 2013-2014 school year, ISIS and terrorist attacks weren't as big of a thing as it's become as of lately, Donald Trump wasn't popular yet, there weren't as many police shootings (like Ferguson, MO or  Baltimore), the SJW or LGBT stuff weren't a major thing as it is now. So political and lifestyle wise, I would say the mid 2010's wasn't in full effect until 2014-2015, but with everything else like the fashion or music all of that were in full effect by 2013-2014. I would argue that our senior year of high school (2013-2014) was the last time things in society were still peaceful and upbeat before all of that stuff I mentioned started happening.

This all the way!!!!! :o
2012-13 and 2013-14 were basically both transitional with 2012-13 leaning towards early, and 2013-14 leaning a little towards mid. But 2014-15 was SOLID mid 10s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/21/16 at 2:03 pm

Why did Toon leave so suddenly? :'( He was fun. I hope he comes back.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/21/16 at 5:53 pm


Why did Toon leave so suddenly? :'( He was fun. I hope he comes back.

It broke my heart when I found out he left!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/21/16 at 7:41 pm


Why did Toon leave so suddenly? :'( He was fun. I hope he comes back.


He probably had to do something outside his internet life.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/21/16 at 9:11 pm


What are your thoughts on the 2011 class? Do you think we have anything in common at ALL with the 2010 and 11 classes? Cause I have tons of friends who graduated from that time, and they don't feel DRAMATICALLY different. They do feel a slightly more old school tho.
Really? What makes them slightly old school?


Why did Toon leave so suddenly? :'( He was fun. I hope he comes back.
Me too. It makes me wonder if he was the same user that disappeared for a while on personalitycafe and then returned.


I wish! That would be really cool if Pop Punk stayed true to itself throughout the 2000s thanks to Green Day making the right choices. I'd love it.
and not just that, but even pop culture still being extreme and whacky. That would have been awesome :D


Why do us 1994 kids always get lumped in with 98/99 kids? I feel like I have way more in common with those born in 1989/90 than 1998/9.
Yes! This alot. I have many friends your age and I see them having more in common with those 4/5 years older than them than those the same range younger.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/21/16 at 10:14 pm


Really? What makes them slightly old school?

Well, by slightly more old school; I was basically saying that they just felt a little more old school than myself. They just got into the pop culutre a little before I did. ;)  and they also became teens before the late 2006 shift, They were also in HS before the changeful 2008-09 season.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/21/16 at 11:45 pm


and not just that, but even pop culture still being extreme and whacky. That would have been awesome :D


Yeah, it'd be rad!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 05/22/16 at 12:30 am


I'm gonna have to disagree with 2012-2013 school year being a pure early 2010's year culturally. From my experiences 2012-2013 was the transition from early 2010's to mid 2010's culturally, and by the 2013-2014 school year mid 2010's culture was in full effect. I think 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 school years were the most pure early 2010's school years culturally, with 2010-2011 being the absolute peak. The electropop era of music was over my the 2012-2013 school year and logo brand/bright colored T-shirts declined a lot throughout the 2012-2013 school year as well.


I'm not sure if I would go that far. I will admit that 2012-2013 had some mid 2010's tendencies, but I don't think it was a transition. It was more just hints of the coming cultural and chronological era. It's just like 1992-1993: Being primarily early decade but offering hints of the mid decade.

I've personally always felt that the 2011-2012 school year was the peak early 2010's period; Having the Hunger Games, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Sherlock Holmes: A Games of Shadows, The Avengers, the peak success of Adele's 21, Coldplay's Mylo Xyloto, Drake's Take Care, the beginnings of Rihanna's Talk That Talk era and David Guetta's Nothing but the Beat era, and songs such as "Ass Back Home", "Turn Me On", "Not Over You", and "Set Fire to the Rain". Those are the first things that instantly come to my head when I think of the early 2010's. I consider the 2011-2012 school year as what #Infinity (R.I.P.) calls it the "cultural equilibrium" of the early 2010's; the late '00s were far enough in the past to be irrelevant, but it was too soon for the mid 2010's to start knocking on the door.

Electropop was also still quite popular in 2012-13. Ke$ha released three successful singles from her album Warrior, which were "Die Young", "C'Mon", and "Crazy Kids" (which sounds like a bassier version of "Like A G6" 8-P). Maroon 5's Overexposed era was at its peak, and so was Pink's The Truth About Love.


Also, I don't think the Class of 2013 and 2014 were completely different from each other as you're making it out to be. But I wouldn't be offended if someone was to tell me that the Class of 2014 was more related to 2015 than 2013. Some of the fashion trends you mentioned about the Class of 2013 like the bright colored logo T-shirts (especially Ralph Lauren Polo or American Eagle), printed hoodies, or Supra high-tops (or colorful Nike shoes similar to that), my friends and I followed completely my freshman and sophomore years of high school, heck even 8th grade too. Now the later fashion trends you mentioned we did in fact follow more our junior and seniors years of high school. I also remember when Timberland boots exploded around my junior year as well.


I was following those early 2010's fashions as well, particularly in my first two years of high school. I dumped them halfway through junior year because I got sick of the clothes, to which I wore flannel and slightly loose jeans for the rest of my junior year. I was just explaining how we and the 2015 graduates were the first ones to abandon those early 2010's styles. I don't remember seeing Timberlands become popular again until 2013-14, although I do remember Doc Martens exploding in my junior year of high school (hehe, us white people!). I didn't wear them, but I saw a few who did.


One more thing I must address, while the 2013-2014 school year may have been mid 2010's culturally by then, like in terms of fashion, music, and TV shows. I wouldn't say it was as pure mid 2010's as it is right now during the 2015-2016 school year, heck even with some things the 2014-2015 school year either despite the trends being nearly the same as 2013-2014. During the 2013-2014 school year, ISIS and terrorist attacks weren't as big of a thing as it's become as of lately, Donald Trump wasn't popular yet, there weren't as many police shootings (like Ferguson, MO or  Baltimore), the SJW or LGBT stuff weren't a major thing as it is now. So political and lifestyle wise, I would say the mid 2010's wasn't in full effect until 2014-2015, but with everything else like the fashion or music all of that were in full effect by 2013-2014. I would argue that our senior year of high school (2013-2014) was the last time things in society were still peaceful and upbeat before all of that stuff I mentioned started happening.


Actually, our senior year was when ISIS began to rise (although the Taliban was still very active around then - remember them?) and Donald Trump didn't become "popular" until the end of summer of 2015 (he had to build a reputation). It's true there weren't as many police shootings, and the Black Lives Matter movement didn't start until summer 2014, but racial tensions have been bubbling since 2012 when the Trayvon Martin shooting and the Hunger Games (e.g. Rue being black and many fans not liking it) happened. The Social Justice Warrior movement has been around since the early 2010's (I have never even ran into one, Internet or otherwise, making me think this movement is a myth), and it depends on what part of the LGBT civil rights movement you're discussing. For lesbians and gay men, that part of the civil rights movement defined the entire first half of the 2010's. Regarding transgender rights, that didn't even start until around the summer of 2015–no one ever thought about it much beforehand.

Again, I think the domestic political issues are highly based on the person's community. However, I try to be as general and objective as possible when pointing out political trends–when they completely caught on throughout the entire country. I'd say the Class of 2015 was the last graduating class that had completely carefree high school careers, totally unburdened by any and all politics and world events. I truly feel bad for the Class of 2016, they're graduating and their senior year was filled with a bunch of stressful news events. They had to worry about the Presidential Race (with all the nominees), severe ISIS terrorist attacks (Paris! :\'( ), and the transgender bathroom policies. On top of that, they have to worry about college applications, signing up for classes, entering adulthood, and the fact that they're leaving high school ending a special chapter of their lives that they will never experience again and will in turn start a new one! Senior year should be anything but depressing.


Man, that last one left me emotionally exhausted. How depressing. In the end our views on things are all relative and are backed up by personal experiences. I will respectfully agree to disagree.  ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/22/16 at 2:46 pm


He probably had to do something outside his internet life.


Deleting an account is a bit permanent though... I hope he comes back, but I wouldn't hold my breath.  :\'(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 05/22/16 at 3:40 pm


This all the way!!!!! :o
2012-13 and 2013-14 were basically both transitional with 2012-13 leaning towards early, and 2013-14 leaning a little towards mid. But 2014-15 was SOLID mid 10s.


Not true. There were still numerous early 2010's leftovers throughout the school year and even into the summer of 2015. First you had movies like Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man, then you had Minions, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1, Furious 7, and Big Hero 6. Musically, this period still had the occasional early 2010's-style hit, such as DJ Khaled's "Hold You Down", Nicki Minaj's "The Night Is Still Young", Alesso's "Heroes", Pitbull's "Time of Our Lives", Fifth Harmony's "Sledgehammer", Ella Henderson's "Ghost", Walk the Moon's "Shut Up and Dance", Mumford & Sons's "Believe", Little Big Town's "Day Drinking", and Tove Lo's "Talking Body"; it's not much, but it's there. Even Wiz Khalifa's joint hit "See You Again" has a slight early 2010's vibe.

To me, it's the 2015-16 school year that is full-blooded mid 2010's. Everything that became cool back in 2013-14 is emphasized to the umpteenth degree and there are no signs of the early 2010's left in mainstream multimedia.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/22/16 at 3:43 pm


Deleting an account is a bit permanent though... I hope he comes back, but I wouldn't hold my breath.  :\'(


He'll probably make another account on this site in a while.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/22/16 at 4:20 pm


Deleting an account is a bit permanent though... I hope he comes back, but I wouldn't hold my breath.  :\'(


Yeah, Toon was a cool dude.... :-\\

Now how am I gonna derail threads with rude comments about the relation between people's mothers and Shrek's "dipping cups"?? I can't!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/22/16 at 4:23 pm


Yeah, Toon was a cool dude.... :-\\

Now how am I gonna derail threads with rude comments about the relation between people's mothers and Shrek's "dipping cups"?? I can't!


I'll help you derail threads if that makes you feel better.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/22/16 at 4:29 pm


I'll help you derail threads if that makes you feel better.


That would be excellent! The world needs some derailing. Imagine if I was at a political debate (Jordan 2020!) and I just started talking about what the green stuff in Shrek's twinkies actually is?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/22/16 at 4:31 pm


That would be excellent! The world needs some derailing. Imagine if I was at a political debate (Jordan 2020!) and I just started talking about what the green stuff in Shrek's twinkies actually is?


What is it?  :o

I had blisters on my hand before. When I popped them, green stuff oozed out.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/22/16 at 4:34 pm


What is it?  :o

I had blisters on my hand before. When I popped them, green stuff oozed out.


I am not sure but I have some ideas... Let's just say they shouldn't be selling that stuff... :-\\

Dude, that's gross! Are you part ogre?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/22/16 at 4:37 pm


I am not sure but I have some ideas... Let's just say they shouldn't be selling that stuff... :-\\

Dude, that's gross! Are you part ogre?


You know how aliens and humans can have babies in the Sims? I think it's like that. Same for the Shrek Twinkies... it might be made of alien fetuses  :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/22/16 at 4:39 pm


You know how aliens and humans can have babies in the Sims? I think it's like that. Same for the Shrek Twinkies... it might be made of alien fetuses  :o


Oh... Man, that's gross!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/22/16 at 4:50 pm


Oh... Man, that's gross!


Hey, you said you wanted to talk about people's mother and Shrek Twinkies  :-[

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/22/16 at 6:29 pm


Hey, you said you wanted to talk about people's mother and Shrek Twinkies  :-[


Yeah, true...

But c'mon, Shrek is selling some seriously questionable stuff!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/22/16 at 7:03 pm


Not true. There were still numerous early 2010's leftovers throughout the school year and even into the summer of 2015. First you had movies like Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man, then you had Minions, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1, Furious 7, and Big Hero 6. Musically, this period still had the occasional early 2010's-style hit, such as DJ Khaled's "Hold You Down", Nicki Minaj's "The Night Is Still Young", Alesso's "Heroes", Pitbull's "Time of Our Lives", Fifth Harmony's "Sledgehammer", Ella Henderson's "Ghost", Walk the Moon's "Shut Up and Dance", Mumford & Sons's "Believe", Little Big Town's "Day Drinking", and Tove Lo's "Talking Body"; it's not much, but it's there. Even Wiz Khalifa's joint hit "See You Again" has a slight early 2010's vibe.

To me, it's the 2015-16 school year that is full-blooded mid 2010's. Everything that became cool back in 2013-14 is emphasized to the umpteenth degree and there are no signs of the early 2010's left in mainstream multimedia.

True, this might be the quintessential mid 10s season.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/22/16 at 8:39 pm


Well, by slightly more old school; I was basically saying that they just felt a little more old school than myself. They just got into the pop culutre a little before I did. ;)  and they also became teens before the late 2006 shift, They were also in HS before the changeful 2008-09 season.
Ah. Now I see. Yeah, my friends and I are in that weird position. My freshman year was completely different from the rest and for 6th grade, it still had that cheesy early 00s atmosphere (despite it being mainly the core)


Yeah, it'd be rad!
Yeah, all of us still wearing our cringeworthy fashion and going out having a good time with nothing terrifying to worry about  :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/22/16 at 8:41 pm


Yeah, all of us still wearing our cringeworthy fashion and going out having a good time with nothing terrifying to worry about  :D


For sure! Real Skateboarder culture would of lasted a lot longer, too! Man, I wish that actually did happen. :-\\

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/22/16 at 9:19 pm


For sure! Real Skateboarder culture would of lasted a lot longer, too! Man, I wish that actually did happen. :-\\
and more soul Hip-hop and R&B :D. The early 00s defining the entire decade instead of the fake emo and pointless wars. :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/22/16 at 9:21 pm


and more soul Hip-hop and R&B :D. The early 00s defining the entire decade instead of the fake emo and pointless wars. :D


Damn right! Fun Pop Punk with Skate beats, soulful RnB, no Crunk, more Slim Shady themes, bright colorful clothing, real spiky hair, baggy dickies with chains... Oh man, I would of loved it!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/22/16 at 9:28 pm


Damn right! Fun Pop Punk with Skate beats, soulful RnB, no Crunk, more Slim Shady themes, bright colorful clothing, real spiky hair, baggy dickies with chains... Oh man, I would of loved it!
I can tell. Just imagine if that vibe would have stayed like that. Our generation would definitely have enjoyed it very much. Even better, the women as well. Depsite the fashion on them being all cringing, they looked wonderful :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/22/16 at 9:31 pm


I can tell. Just imagine if that vibe would have stayed like that. Our generation would definitely have enjoyed it very much. Even better, the women as well. Depsite the fashion on them being all cringing, they looked wonderful :)


Yeah, definitely! I would be saying good things about the entire 00's if this was the case. For women, the early 00s were all about being a tomboy and a strong woman. Things like Let Go-era Avril Lavigne and Buffy the Vampire Slayer and then, sometime around the release of Mean Girls, that changed into the whole "bitch airhead in pink" thing being big for girls. Women definitely did look great back then!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/22/16 at 9:46 pm


Yeah, definitely! I would be saying good things about the entire 00's if this was the case. For women, the early 00s were all about being a tomboy and a strong woman. Things like Let Go-era Avril Lavigne and Buffy the Vampire Slayer and then, sometime around the release of Mean Girls, that changed into the whole "bitch airhead in pink" thing being big for girls. Women definitely did look great back then!
I know you would. And yeah, they were feminine and badass at the same time. That was awesome  :D.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/22/16 at 9:57 pm


I know you would. And yeah, they were feminine and badass at the same time. That was awesome  :D.


I totally agree. It was the perfect balance! Man, it sucks that the real 00s had to take over... :-\\ 2000-2002 ruled!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/22/16 at 10:07 pm


I totally agree. It was the perfect balance! Man, it sucks that the real 00s had to take over... :-\\ 2000-2002 ruled!
I agree! It sure was. I know, it wouldn't have happened if certain events didn't occur.

And so did 2003  ;). All 4 of those years ruled!!!!!!! I wonder why as a generation, we didn't prevent that era occurring? We were the targets for pop culture of that time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/22/16 at 10:13 pm

People really hated the early 2000s as it was happening. I remember listening to Avril Lavigne, Sum 41 and Simple Plan and people not even that much older than me hissing at us and b*tching about "the music kids listen to these days". Its demise was inevitable, not that those people liked mid-2000s music either.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/22/16 at 10:14 pm

My 2004 appreciation thread is coming soon! For all the people who grew up in the 90's or early 2000's who keep thinking 2004 was the worst year in modern society.... but I'm going to prove you wrong.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/22/16 at 10:26 pm


My 2004 appreciation thread is coming soon! For all the people who grew up in the 90's or early 2000's who keep thinking 2004 was the worst year in modern society.... but I'm going to prove you wrong.

Good luck brother! ;)  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/22/16 at 10:42 pm


I agree! It sure was. I know, it wouldn't have happened if certain events didn't occur.

And so did 2003  ;). All 4 of those years ruled!!!!!!! I wonder why as a generation, we didn't prevent that era occurring? We were the targets for pop culture of that time.


Yeah, 2003 was pretty cool, too! I'm not sure, man. I guess the interests changed as time went on?


People really hated the early 2000s as it was happening. I remember listening to Avril Lavigne, Sum 41 and Simple Plan and people not even that much older than me hissing at us and b*tching about "the music kids listen to these days". Its demise was inevitable, not that those people liked mid-2000s music either.


All the people I knew loved the early 00s at the time. So many good bands.


My 2004 appreciation thread is coming soon! For all the people who grew up in the 90's or early 2000's who keep thinking 2004 was the worst year in modern society.... but I'm going to prove you wrong.


But 2004 is the worst, it's in the "Book of Facts". :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/22/16 at 11:11 pm


My 2004 appreciation thread is coming soon! For all the people who grew up in the 90's or early 2000's who keep thinking 2004 was the worst year in modern society.... but I'm going to prove you wrong.


2004 was okay, I liked a lot of stuff out of that year, even though the second half wasn't good in my personal life. Redeeming 2005 would be playing on hard mode, good luck to anyone who tries that one. :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/22/16 at 11:49 pm


2004 was okay, I liked a lot of stuff out of that year, even though the second half wasn't good in my personal life. Redeeming 2005 would be playing on hard mode, good luck to anyone who tries that one. :P


That is absolutely 100% true. 2005 is the year of total suck.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/23/16 at 9:59 am


My 2004 appreciation thread is coming soon! For all the people who grew up in the 90's or early 2000's who keep thinking 2004 was the worst year in modern society.... but I'm going to prove you wrong.


I thought 2004 was one of the greatest and most definitive years of the 2000s. It's sad that people usually ignore 2004 for some reason, even though it seemed really important for the decade.

We had:

- Boston Red Sox winning the World Series for the first time in 86 years
- The Super Bowl XXXVIII incident with Justin Timberlake (which would inspire the founders of YouTube to create the site)
- Reelection of George W. Bush
- The releases of Shrek 2, The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, The Incredibles, Spider Man 2, Seed of Chucky, Napoleon Dynamite, and Shark Tale
- Games such as GTA: San Andreas, Pokemon Firered and Leafgreen, Super Mario 64 DS, The Sims 2, and World of Warcraft
- The rebrandings of Cartoon Network with the City era.

These are such reasons why 2004 (along with 2005) are my favorite years of the 2000s. They had wonderful things coming out from the people who developed or made them.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/23/16 at 10:00 am


That is absolutely 100% true. 2005 is the year of total suck.


You should have better tastes in the mid 2000s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/23/16 at 11:29 am


That is absolutely 100% true. 2005 is the year of total suck.


2004 is when things started to suck, but 2005 was peak suckitude.

When I think 2005, I think Paris Hilton. She was all over TV then. Bland, boring, vapid and meaningless. :(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/23/16 at 1:09 pm


2004 is when things started to suck, but 2005 was peak suckitude.

When I think 2005, I think Paris Hilton. She was all over TV then. Bland, boring, vapid and meaningless. :(


Reality TV wasn't the only thing that kept North Americans occupied in 2005.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/23/16 at 4:05 pm


2004 is when things started to suck, but 2005 was peak suckitude.

When I think 2005, I think Paris Hilton. She was all over TV then. Bland, boring, vapid and meaningless. :(

I'm glad my personal life was great in 2005. That was my favorite year as a kid, personal life wise.
and when I think of 2005, I think Batman Begins. :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/23/16 at 4:18 pm


I'm glad my personal life was great in 2005. That was my favorite year as a kid, personal life wise.
and when I think of 2005, I think Batman Begins. :D


2005 was my favorite year of the mid 2000's pop culturally from a kid perspective hands down! I had so many memories of playing on the Gamecube and XBOX all year long. Going to the YMCA for basic swimming lessons. Kid channels like CN, Disney Channel, Kids WB, and Toon Disney/Jetix had a lot of variety on the networks coming out with epic new episodes and reruns! I loved movies like Batman Begins, Fantastic Four, Shark Boy & Lava Girl, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, Madagascar, The Chronicles of Naria: Lion Witch Wardrobe, Herbie: Fully Loaded, and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Not to mention 2005 was the year I discovered the Nintendo DS and I remember going to the mall playing the beta version of Mario Kart DS before it came out. Those were good times. The summer after 3rd grade and before 4th grade was a relaxing feel. 2006 was the best year of my childhood for my personal life like family events, vacations, or the friends I made.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/23/16 at 4:23 pm


I'm glad my personal life was great in 2005. That was my favorite year as a kid, personal life wise.
and when I think of 2005, I think Batman Begins. :D


When I think of 2005, I think about Sharkboy and Lavagirl.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/23/16 at 4:33 pm


2005 was my favorite year of the mid 2000's pop culturally from a kid perspective hands down! I had so many memories of playing on the Gamecube and XBOX all year long. Going to the YMCA for basic swimming lessons. Kid channels like CN, Disney Channel, Kids WB, and Toon Disney/Jetix had a lot of variety on the networks coming out with epic new episodes and reruns! I loved movies like Batman Begins, Fantastic Four, Shark Boy & Lava Girl, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, Madagascar, The Chronicles of Naria: Lion Witch Wardrobe, Herbie: Fully Loaded, and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Not to mention 2005 was the year I discovered the Nintendo DS and I remember going to the mall playing the beta version of Mario Kart DS before it came out. Those were good times. The summer after 3rd grade and before 4th grade was a relaxing feel. 2006 was the best year of my childhood for my personal life like family events, vacations, or the friends I made.


I never knew that you like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. A lot of people that I knew in real life and on the Internet seems to like the 1971 version more than the 2005 version. I may be one of the only people out there that actually likes the 2005 version. Same with the other reboots released in the 2000s, like Stuart Little (1 & 2 were my faves), Garfield: The Movie, 2003's Cat in the Hat, and the live-action Alvin of the Chipmunks (except for the Road Trip one).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/23/16 at 4:37 pm


I never knew that you like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. A lot of people that I knew in real life and on the Internet seems to like the 1971 version more than the 2005 version. I may be one of the only people out there that actually likes the 2005 version. Same with the other reboots released in the 2000s, like Stuart Little (1 & 2 were my faves), Garfield: The Movie, 2003's Cat in the Hat, and the live-action Alvin of the Chipmunks (except for the Road Trip one).


I've said it many times on here before. As a 9 year old I thought it was alright. I liked how towards the end of the movie they showed what happened to all of the spoiled and rich kids who ended up messing up their bodies. Unlike the original movie, which left a lot of question marks what happened to the children.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/23/16 at 4:40 pm


I've said it many times on here before. As a 9 year old I thought it was alright. I liked how towards the end of the movie they showed what happened to all of the spoiled and rich kids who ended up messing up their bodies. Unlike the original movie, which left a lot of question marks what happened to the children.


Yeah, and it didn't seem annoying as the 1971 version.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/23/16 at 9:56 pm


People really hated the early 2000s as it was happening. I remember listening to Avril Lavigne, Sum 41 and Simple Plan and people not even that much older than me hissing at us and b*tching about "the music kids listen to these days". Its demise was inevitable, not that those people liked mid-2000s music either.
That must have been in Canada. Here in the U.S., the early 00s was awesome. There was so much to offer and it was for everyone.


My 2004 appreciation thread is coming soon! For all the people who grew up in the 90's or early 2000's who keep thinking 2004 was the worst year in modern society.... but I'm going to prove you wrong.
2004 was actually decent. Hip-Hop, Pop and R&B was still fantastic; the games were diverse; the movies were wonderful (many which are now classics); Even the atmosphere despite being somewhat dark, was relaxing.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/23/16 at 10:04 pm


Yeah, 2003 was pretty cool, too! I'm not sure, man. I guess the interests changed as time went on?
I guess so, unless something was distracting us from preventing that change.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 05/23/16 at 10:14 pm


That must have been in Canada. Here in the U.S., the early 00s was awesome. There was so much to offer and it was for everyone.
2004 was actually decent. Hip-Hop, Pop and R&B was still fantastic; the games were diverse; the movies were wonderful (many which are now classics); Even the atmosphere despite being somewhat dark, was relaxing.


The atmosphere throughout 2004 and 2005 felt pretty light to me, even though 2002 & 2003 were the extreme lightest of all. 2006 & 2007 was kinda in between, but 2008 & 2009 was a short dark period before the light came back throughout the early 2010's. These last couple of years, like 2015 & 2016 have been extremely dark though.

http://cx.aos.ask.com/question/aq/1400px-788px/colors-make-up-white-light_806a2a185b18277e.jpg

mmAlqoM09QE

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 05/24/16 at 11:24 pm


I never knew that you like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. A lot of people that I knew in real life and on the Internet seems to like the 1971 version more than the 2005 version. I may be one of the only people out there that actually likes the 2005 version.

There were parts of the 2005 version that I actually enjoyed; others not so much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: XYkid on 05/25/16 at 12:22 am


That must have been in Canada. Here in the U.S., the early 00s was awesome. There was so much to offer and it was for everyone.
2004 was actually decent. Hip-Hop, Pop and R&B was still fantastic; the games were diverse; the movies were wonderful (many which are now classics); Even the atmosphere despite being somewhat dark, was relaxing.
2004 also had plenty of great rock hits.
That year was the first year that the post-9/11 hype seemed to calm down a bit, which made it have a similar feel to the late 90s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/25/16 at 1:26 am


The atmosphere throughout 2004 and 2005 felt pretty light to me, even though 2002 & 2003 were the extreme lightest of all. 2006 & 2007 was kinda in between, but 2008 & 2009 was a short dark period before the light came back throughout the early 2010's. These last couple of years, like 2015 & 2016 have been extremely dark though.

That's cause you were young.... well I was too! ;D ;) But even as a kid then, I knew things weren't peacful in the world. The mid 2000s while a little upbeat had it's natural disasters and the iraq war. I think the houseing market bubble made it feel like the mid 00s were the most carefree, but it had it's serious parts.
Also things didn't get truly dark in the 00s until the late 00s during the backlash against the bush administration, the dreaded war in Iraq, and then latter the economic crisis.
and you might wanna add second half of 2014 to your ''dark'' years too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/25/16 at 1:58 am


before the light came back throughout the early 2010's.

And about the early 10s.... they were still pretty damn cynical, if you were a teenage like myself. Maybe if you were a young 20 something at the time, it probably felt more upbeat; but that time period for me NOPE!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/25/16 at 9:07 am


Reality TV wasn't the only thing that kept North Americans occupied in 2005.


It really exploded that year though, it was on every channel and it was inescapable. 2005 and 2006 are the reality TV golden age  8-P 8-P


That must have been in Canada. Here in the U.S., the early 00s was awesome. There was so much to offer and it was for everyone.
2004 was actually decent. Hip-Hop, Pop and R&B was still fantastic; the games were diverse; the movies were wonderful (many which are now classics); Even the atmosphere despite being somewhat dark, was relaxing.


I liked the early 2000s, I'm just saying there were a lot of people who hated it, so the change was inevitable. If everyone liked it, then nothing would have changed, especially not so suddenly. The early 2000s in Canada were more peaceful than in the US, so I don't think it's that. You can't keep saying "maybe in Canada" every time you disagree with me :P


2004 also had plenty of great rock hits.
That year was the first year that the post-9/11 hype seemed to calm down a bit, which made it have a similar feel to the late 90s.


Disagree on the second bit, although I've been debbie downer enough for one thread ;D

Agree on the first part  :D Although I know a certain poster who won't ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/25/16 at 10:06 am


There were parts of the 2005 version that I actually enjoyed; others not so much.


I don't mind that. Even if I favor the 2005 remake compared to the 1971 original, I respect that.


It really exploded that year though, it was on every channel and it was inescapable. 2005 and 2006 are the reality TV golden age  8-P 8-P


It wasn't literally on every single channel out there, since I don't think networks like Comedy Central, HBO, CBS, NBC, and ABC had reality shows in the United States. But since you lived in Canada, I suppose you had very different TV from what we had. So I don't know what channels (aside from YTV and Teletoon) did you and other Canadians had in the mid 2000s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 05/25/16 at 11:46 am


I don't mind that. Even if I favor the 2005 remake compared to the 1971 original, I respect that.

Likewise, if someone else indicated that they liked it better, I'd respect their opinion as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 05/25/16 at 3:14 pm


It really exploded that year though, it was on every channel and it was inescapable. 2005 and 2006 are the reality TV golden age 8-P 8-P

I liked the early 2000s, I'm just saying there were a lot of people who hated it, so the change was inevitable. If everyone liked it, then nothing would have changed, especially not so suddenly. The early 2000s in Canada were more peaceful than in the US, so I don't think it's that. You can't keep saying "maybe in Canada" every time you disagree with me :P

Disagree on the second bit, although I've been debbie downer enough for one thread ;D

Agree on the first part  :D Although I know a certain poster who won't ;D


I watched a lot of the reality shows.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 05/25/16 at 3:27 pm


And about the early 10s.... they were still pretty damn cynical, if you were a teenage like myself. Maybe if you were a young 20 something at the time, it probably felt more upbeat; but that time period for me NOPE!


*gets Vietnam War like flashbacks of 2012*

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/26/16 at 12:13 am


I don't mind that. Even if I favor the 2005 remake compared to the 1971 original, I respect that.

It wasn't literally on every single channel out there, since I don't think networks like Comedy Central, HBO, CBS, NBC, and ABC had reality shows in the United States. But since you lived in Canada, I suppose you had very different TV from what we had. So I don't know what channels (aside from YTV and Teletoon) did you and other Canadians had in the mid 2000s.


Are you sure those didn't? We have ABC, CBS and NBC and those were flooded with reality shows in the mid-2000s. Comedy Central is almost entirely talk shows and other comedy shows, I guess it's not "reality", but it's not a channel for much fictional stuff either. We don't have HBO as a cable channel though, so I don't know what that's like.


I watched a lot of the reality shows.


Same. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/27/16 at 2:45 pm


The atmosphere throughout 2004 and 2005 felt pretty light to me, even though 2002 & 2003 were the extreme lightest of all. 2006 & 2007 was kinda in between, but 2008 & 2009 was a short dark period before the light came back throughout the early 2010's. These last couple of years, like 2015 & 2016 have been extremely dark though.

http://cx.aos.ask.com/question/aq/1400px-788px/colors-make-up-white-light_806a2a185b18277e.jpg

mmAlqoM09QE
I agree. despite the Iraq War and the Emo being everywhere, the vibe was so laid-back.


2004 also had plenty of great rock hits.

That year was the first year that the post-9/11 hype seemed to calm down a bit, which made it have a similar feel to the late 90s.
Yes, it sure did. There were plenty of non-emo rock hits at that time.

I recall that. I don't remember seeing anyone being scared at all anymore even if it occurred 3 years earlier at that time.


I liked the early 2000s, I'm just saying there were a lot of people who hated it, so the change was inevitable. If everyone liked it, then nothing would have changed, especially not so suddenly. The early 2000s in Canada were more peaceful than in the US, so I don't think it's that. You can't keep saying "maybe in Canada" every time you disagree with me :P
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I understand. Maybe it was because they didn't like the culture. AS for peacefulness, it was like that here until 9/11 :\'(. Then it picked back up.


And about the early 10s.... they were still pretty damn cynical, if you were a teenage like myself. Maybe if you were a young 20 something at the time, it probably felt more upbeat; but that time period for me NOPE!
I guess this doesn't apply to me since I enjoyed the era until it ended. The music and fashion was very upbeat; video games were still decent. It kinda had that dreamy vibe like some other eras did.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 05/28/16 at 9:12 pm

I noticed a pattern in which the odd numbered decades are usually themselves covered wholly by one generation, in this pattern, all of the 50's babies are Baby Boomers, all of the 70's babies are Gen Xers, all of the 90's babies are Millennials, etc.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 05/28/16 at 10:22 pm


That's cause you were young.... well I was too! ;D ;) But even as a kid then, I knew things weren't peacful in the world. The mid 2000s while a little upbeat had it's natural disasters and the iraq war. I think the houseing market bubble made it feel like the mid 00s were the most carefree, but it had it's serious parts.
Also things didn't get truly dark in the 00s until the late 00s during the backlash against the bush administration, the dreaded war in Iraq, and then latter the economic crisis.
and you might wanna add second half of 2014 to your ''dark'' years too.


I don't get why you see how things got a lot darker around the second half of 2014. In my experience, it wasn't until the second half of 2015 that things became pseudo-chaotic. To tell you the truth, the world has become a much more blatantly corrupt place since 9/11 happened, as well as the rise of 24 hour news, the ratification of the Patriot Act, the internet being used to provide people the opportunities to express their views as freely and unprofessionally as they desire, Millennials coming of age and entering the adult world, and the continuing threat of terrorism around the globe.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 05/29/16 at 12:58 am

97ers and their Gen Z shenanigans!

I was at my friend's house for a bit, he has a younger brother born 1997. My friend was in the bathroom and I was playing Smash with his brother. I was annihilating him, he couldn't even touch the ground, so I'm like "all your base are belong to us." And he's like "what?" >:(

I'm done with 97ers for good.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 05/29/16 at 1:31 am


97ers and their Gen Z shenanigans!

I was at my friend's house for a bit, he has a younger brother born 1997. My friend was in the bathroom and I was playing Smash with his brother. I was annihilating him, he couldn't even touch the ground, so I'm like "all your base are belong to us." And he's like "what?" >:(

I'm done with 97ers for good.


He doesn't know that joke!? That's a classic internet joke from the early 00s! A staple of AOL chat jokes! I remember that from way back. Same with that kid with the "future girlfriend" and spase peepole.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 05/29/16 at 2:14 pm


I noticed a pattern in which the odd numbered decades are usually themselves covered wholly by one generation, in this pattern, all of the 50's babies are Baby Boomers, all of the 70's babies are Gen Xers, all of the 90's babies are Millennials, etc.
That depends on the ending. Hopefully, it is that way considering Millennials is one of the largest generations here in the U.S.

Also, if you go further back you even notice that all 30s borns are Silents, all 1910s are GIs, all 1890s are Lost Gen and all 1870s are Missionaries.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 05/29/16 at 4:25 pm


I don't get why you see how things got a lot darker around the second half of 2014. In my experience, it wasn't until the second half of 2015 that things became pseudo-chaotic. To tell you the truth, the world has become a much more blatantly corrupt place since 9/11 happened, as well as the rise of 24 hour news, the ratification of the Patriot Act, the internet being used to provide people the opportunities to express their views as freely and unprofessionally as they desire, Millennials coming of age and entering the adult world, and the continuing threat of terrorism around the globe.

Well, I'm speaking as a missouri Native, things were pretty crazy over here during that latter half.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 05/29/16 at 6:17 pm


Well, I'm speaking as a missouri Native, things were pretty crazy over here during that latter half.


Oh I see.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 05/30/16 at 11:40 pm


97ers and their Gen Z shenanigans!

I was at my friend's house for a bit, he has a younger brother born 1997. My friend was in the bathroom and I was playing Smash with his brother. I was annihilating him, he couldn't even touch the ground, so I'm like "all your base are belong to us." And he's like "what?" >:(

I'm done with 97ers for good.


Video game mistranslation memes are always fun. If he's not old enough to remember All Your Base Are Belong To Us, then I know he can't remember this classic gem:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/I_am_Error.png

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 06/01/16 at 9:36 pm

My parents are Baby Boomers.

I concentrate a lot on my boyfriend(hubby ♡) because he's my partner in crime lol! No, he's my partner. He is of the Millennial Generation, born in 1986. And he's the only one in my family that is. One thing though, his folks are baby boomers as well. Does that make sense? Just curious.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 06/02/16 at 5:35 pm


That depends on the ending. Hopefully, it is that way considering Millennials is one of the largest generations here in the U.S.

Also, if you go further back you even notice that all 30s borns are Silents, all 1910s are GIs, all 1890s are Lost Gen and all 1870s are Missionaries.


Maybe because the authors of the generation theory like to put all the people born in an odd-numbered decade in one generation?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/04/16 at 11:27 am

You guys say 1987 borns are the core and heart of Gen Y, but I have proof that they are Y/Z cusp. I was talking to not exactly my co-worker, but she works in the same building as me, she turned 29 last Sunday, and we were talking about every Torontonians favourite topic What revenue tools should the provincial government implement to provide a stable and steady source of funds local public transit, if any? and in the middle of my discourse, she interrupted me mid-sentence, not to ask me for my email, not for my Facebook, but What's your Snapchat?. Y/Z cusp confirmed.  A mess.

I have proof that 1985 are the peak of Gen Y. I was talking with a random lesbian on the bus. She complained about how her dad in his 60s is suffering from early stage Alzheimer's and how her sister still doesn't have a job or a college degree and just browses Twitter all day. Her sister is 31 years old, so born 1984 or 1985. No job at 31 is the most millennial thing I've ever heard. A mess.

Also, I feel bad for calling my 97er friend Gen Z because he didn't watch DBZ. Turns out there were... erm, external reasons as to why he didn't get to watch much TV growing up. :( 97ers redeemed. Unmessed.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/04/16 at 11:52 am


Video game mistranslation memes are always fun. If he's not old enough to remember All Your Base Are Belong To Us, then I know he can't remember this classic gem:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/I_am_Error.png


Never forget the greatest one!

http://65.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l5jb2svg5Y1qc4y5qo1_500.jpg

Also, not technically a meme (except the PROTIP portion), but still has me rolling every time ;D

http://doomwiki.org/w/images/6/6a/Protip.jpg

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 06/04/16 at 3:13 pm


My parents are Baby Boomers.

so are mine.



I concentrate a lot on my boyfriend(hubby ♡) because he's my partner in crime lol! No, he's my partner. He is of the Millennial Generation, born in 1986. And he's the only one in my family that is. One thing though, his folks are baby boomers as well. Does that make sense? Just curious.

I don't see why it shouldn't...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/04/16 at 8:44 pm


Maybe because the authors of the generation theory like to put all the people born in an odd-numbered decade in one generation?
Probably so. Then again if you go further than that, the odd numbered decades before the 1870s don't have entirely most of one generation.


You guys say 1987 borns are the core and heart of Gen Y, but I have proof that they are Y/Z cusp. I was talking to not exactly my co-worker, but she works in the same building as me, she turned 29 last Sunday, and we were talking about every Torontonians favourite topic What revenue tools should the provincial government implement to provide a stable and steady source of funds local public transit, if any? and in the middle of my discourse, she interrupted me mid-sentence, not to ask me for my email, not for my Facebook, but What's your Snapchat?. Y/Z cusp confirmed.  A mess.

I have proof that 1985 are the peak of Gen Y. I was talking with a random lesbian on the bus. She complained about how her dad in his 60s is suffering from early stage Alzheimer's and how her sister still doesn't have a job or a college degree and just browses Twitter all day. Her sister is 31 years old, so born 1984 or 1985. No job at 31 is the most millennial thing I've ever heard. A mess.


Also, I feel bad for calling my 97er friend Gen Z because he didn't watch DBZ. Turns out there were... erm, external reasons as to why he didn't get to watch much TV growing up. :( 97ers redeemed. Unmessed.
They're in the minority. Most Echo Boomers (Gen Y) actually don't have Snapchat. That would mainly be the Centennials (Gen Z).

Just because a 31 year old doesn't have any of those doesn't mean that he/she is not a Millennial.

I can honestly tell you really want to be a Plural don't ya? ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 06/04/16 at 9:17 pm


You guys say 1987 borns are the core and heart of Gen Y, but I have proof that they are Y/Z cusp. I was talking to not exactly my co-worker, but she works in the same building as me, she turned 29 last Sunday, and we were talking about every Torontonians favourite topic What revenue tools should the provincial government implement to provide a stable and steady source of funds local public transit, if any? and in the middle of my discourse, she interrupted me mid-sentence, not to ask me for my email, not for my Facebook, but What's your Snapchat?. Y/Z cusp confirmed.  A mess.

I have proof that 1985 are the peak of Gen Y. I was talking with a random lesbian on the bus. She complained about how her dad in his 60s is suffering from early stage Alzheimer's and how her sister still doesn't have a job or a college degree and just browses Twitter all day. Her sister is 31 years old, so born 1984 or 1985. No job at 31 is the most millennial thing I've ever heard. A mess.

Also, I feel bad for calling my 97er friend Gen Z because he didn't watch DBZ. Turns out there were... erm, external reasons as to why he didn't get to watch much TV growing up. :( 97ers redeemed. Unmessed.


Since there's another thread on this site confirming that 1980 and 1981 are both X years, this officially means that Gen Y is the shortest generation in recorded history. It's now down to just 1982-1986. :o

I guess the updated generational chart could go something like this:

Gen X: 1965-1981
Gen Y: 1982-1986
Gen Z: 1987-present


Also, not technically a meme (except the PROTIP portion), but still has me rolling every time ;D

http://doomwiki.org/w/images/6/6a/Protip.jpg


"A Winner is You" is an all-timer, but I've actually never seen this one before. It's so perfectly absurd that it's almost hard to believe it wasn't photoshopped. ;D


They're in the minority. Most Echo Boomers (Gen Y) actually don't have Snapchat. That would mainly be the Centennials (Gen Z).


I've never used Snapchat myself. Truthfully, I wasn't even sure what the heck it even was until about six months ago. ;D

Social media seems to be a bit of a mixed bag for most of the people I know around my age. I have some friends who are just as addicted to it as a 14-year-old, while I have others that don't even have a Twitter or Facebook account. It seems to differ from person to person.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 06/04/16 at 9:22 pm


I guess the updated generational chart could go something like this:

Gen X: 1965-1981
Gen Y: 1982-1986
Gen Z: 1987-present


Why don't we just add 1982 into that Gen X chart over there, you know, to make it more accurate. ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 06/04/16 at 10:23 pm


I guess the updated generational chart could go something like this:

Gen X: 1965-1981
Gen Y: 1982-1986
Gen Z: 1987-present


Why don't we just add 1982 into that Gen X chart over there, you know, to make it more accurate. ;)


The 1982-1986 span for Gen Y is way too vague and the 1987-present span for Gen Z is way too much.

This is why I created a more accurate generational chart:

Gen X: 1965-1982
Gen Y: 1983-2000
Gen Z: 2001-2018

So this means that the last 3 generations are equally 17 years. Plus, I just put back the years of 1987-2000 in Gen Y, while I gave 1982 to Gen X.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/04/16 at 11:45 pm

Hey I wanted to say something about these generations. I noticed when we all discuss them, we forget some things such as the atmosphere, experiences and elections. I might have a new way of who's part of the Millennial Generation.

What I mean by the environment, I mean the school one. For instance, the school vibe of the 00s was completely Millennial. Today in the 10s, it's almost entirely Plural. That means most Millennials (unless they are finishing their Bachelors, Masters and/or begin college late) are not in school anymore.

Now for the experiences, I'm just sticking with adolescence/young adults. Older Echo Boomers had theirs during the early 90s (MS) to the late 00s/early 10s (College) while the younger ones had/have theirs throughout the early 00s (MS) to the right now/late 10s (College).

For elections, many older Millennials were eligible to vote in 2008 while the younger ones right now in 2016 which means most of the younger Yers couldn't even vote for Obama in 2012 at that time.

Here's a list of the following elections:

2000: Barely eligible

2004: Most of the older cohort is eligible

2008: All of the older cohort is eligible

2012: Most of the generation is eligible

2016: The entire generation is eligible

So this how I see this generation

Older Millennials: 1980/81 to 1990

Younger Millennials: 1990 to 1998

Do you guys agree with this way and with all this info think the Echo Boomer pop culture is pretty much over (or almost) since the oldest Plurals (give or take) is about to enter college?


I've never used Snapchat myself. Truthfully, I wasn't even sure what the heck it even was until about six months ago. ;D

Social media seems to be a bit of a mixed bag for most of the people I know around my age. I have some friends who are just as addicted to it as a 14-year-old, while I have others that don't even have a Twitter or Facebook account. It seems to differ from person to person.
I have, but I only used it for 3/4 days ;D

Same here! I have who have friends who either have one of them, a few of them, all of them or none of them. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/05/16 at 12:05 am

I'm curious: does anyone know if there's such a thing as "late 70s Millennials"? Like, has you EVER met anyone born in 77-79 who calls themselves a Millennial and not Gen X?

By most definitions they are considered X, but by some definitions, they are the beginning of Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/05/16 at 12:34 am

Also, I know you guys hate 4chan and all (I happen to like some of their boards), but they have to be the only place on the Internet that confuses millennials for Plurals!

On their /tv/ and /v/ boards, they're always having threads about how "Millennials won't understand the joys of Blockbuster", "Millennials didn't blow into cartridges growing up", "Millennials didn't do this or that", "Millennials suck", "Millennials killed my dog", etc. etc.

Whenever someone says something like "Unless you're over 35 or under 17, you're a millennial", they respond with "wtf I'm 30, I'm Gen Y not millennial. I was born before 2000, how can I be a millennial?" ::)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 06/05/16 at 12:35 am


Also, I know you guys hate 4chan and all (I happen to like some of their boards), but they have to be the only place on the Internet that confuses millennials for Plurals!

On their /tv/ and /v/ boards, they're always having threads about how "Millennials won't understand the joys of Blockbuster", "Millennials didn't blow into cartridges growing up", "Millennials didn't do this or that", "Millennials suck", "Millennials killed my dog", etc. etc.

Whenever someone says something like "Unless you're over 35 or under 17, you're a millennial", they respond with "wtf I'm 30, I'm Gen Y not millennial. I was born before 2000, how can I be a millennial?" ::)


30 year old dudes go on 4chan? ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/05/16 at 12:36 am

You'd be very surprised.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 06/05/16 at 12:39 am


You'd be very surprised.


What about 40 year olds?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/05/16 at 12:56 am

IDK, maybe. I've heard some people on 4chan claim they're even as old as 60, but they're probably lying (it's all anonymous, so you can lie as much as you want).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 06/05/16 at 8:12 am


Hey I wanted to say something about these generations. I noticed when we all discuss them, we forget some things such as the atmosphere, experiences and elections. I might have a new way of who's part of the Millennial Generation.

What I mean by the environment, I mean the school one. For instance, the school vibe of the 00s was completely Millennial. Today in the 10s, it's almost entirely Plural. That means most Millennials (unless they are finishing their Bachelors, Masters and/or begin college late) are not in school anymore.

Now for the experiences, I'm just sticking with adolescence/young adults. Older Echo Boomers had theirs during the early 90s (MS) to the late 00s/early 10s (College) while the younger ones had/have theirs throughout the early 00s (MS) to the right now/late 10s (College).

For elections, many older Millennials were eligible to vote in 2008 while the younger ones right now in 2016 which means most of the younger Yers couldn't even vote for Obama in 2012 at that time.

Here's a list of the following elections:

2000: Barely eligible

2004: Most of the older cohort is eligible

2008: All of the older cohort is eligible

2012: Most of the generation is eligible

2016: The entire generation is eligible

So this how I see this generation

Older Millennials: 1980/81 to 1990

Younger Millennials: 1990 to 1998

Do you guys agree with this way and with all this info think the Echo Boomer pop culture is pretty much over (or almost) since the oldest Plurals (give or take) is about to enter college?


I've always thought that presidential elections are a solid way to judge generational boundaries, since they often tend to be very important pop cultural events in their own right. Your chart is pretty much spot on for Gen Y. 2000 was a year where the first-time young vote was dominated by X/Y Cuspers coming of age, while 2004 was largely Early Yers. 2008, Obama vs. McCain against the backdrop of the financial crisis, is unquestionably a Peak Y election, while Obama's re-election campaign in 2012 was for a mixture of Peak and Late Yers. Those voting for the first time in 2016 will largely be Late Yers and kids on the Y/Z Cusp.

If you used the same formula for first-time Gen X voters, it would come out something like this:

1980: Boomer/X Cusp or Gen Jonesers
1984: Early Xers
1988: Peak Xers
1992: Peak/Late Xers
1996: Late Xers

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 06/05/16 at 1:33 pm


What I mean by the environment, I mean the school one. For instance, the school vibe of the 00s was completely Millennial. Today in the 10s, it's almost entirely Plural. That means most Millennials (unless they are finishing their Bachelors, Masters and/or begin college late) are not in school anymore.


I don't think so. Generations typically last 20 years, with the exception of Generation X, which lasted 17. Millennials were called millennials in the first place because they graduated high school at the turn of the Millennium–the year 2000. Class of 2000 is widely considered the first Millennials, and for simplicities' sake, the Class of 2019 will be the last full Millennial graduating class. In the span of 1000 years, 20 is nothing, making it the perfect boundaries for this generation. The oldest members Homeland generation don't even start high school until the fall of this year; Class of 2020 are the first Homelanders (with the exception of those born in 2001–the very final Millennials).

For elections, many older Millennials were eligible to vote in 2008 while the younger ones right now in 2016 which means most of the younger Yers couldn't even vote for Obama in 2012 at that time.

Here's a list of the following elections:

2000: Barely eligible

2004: Most of the older cohort is eligible

2008: All of the older cohort is eligible

2012: Most of the generation is eligible

2016: The entire generation is eligible

So this how I see this generation

Older Millennials: 1980/81 to 1990

Younger Millennials: 1990 to 1998


I totally disagree with this. Since the youngest millennials graduate in 2019 (in my view), that would mean the 2020 elections would be the first Presidential Election in which all Millennials will be able to vote, since those born in 2001 will be 19 or almost 19 years old. President Obama is the president that best represents Millennials and caters to their views, I'll give you that.

The Class of 2018 are the youngest people I have seriously interacted with (because they are just now old enough to get a job and I work with them) and they are still very much Millennial, ranging from their tastes to their personality to their views about the world. They are just as Millennial as someone who graduated high school in the aughts. In my opinion older Millennials are 1982-1991 and younger Millennials are 1992-2001 if you want to split the generation in half. People born in 2000 just don't represent a completely different generation. I haven't seriously interacted with people born in 2001 (Class of 2019), but I'm pretty confident they won't be much different.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/05/16 at 2:57 pm


I'm curious: does anyone know if there's such a thing as "late 70s Millennials"? Like, has you EVER met anyone born in 77-79 who calls themselves a Millennial and not Gen X?

By most definitions they are considered X, but by some definitions, they are the beginning of Y.
There probably is and we just don't know about it. If that's the case, then Millennials would be seen as 1977/98-1994/95 instead of 1981-2000/01.

If you noticed, not only could they have watched the teen movies of the late 90's and early 00's, but they even could have immersed in the teen pop culture from same period as well. In addition, yes they graduated high school in the mid 90s; however,  they graduated from college in the early 00s which by then was already Echo Boomer culture (which was in full swing by the late 90s) and they were under 25 throughout the same time-frame.


I've always thought that presidential elections are a solid way to judge generational boundaries, since they often tend to be very important pop cultural events in their own right. Your chart is pretty much spot on for Gen Y. 2000 was a year where the first-time young vote was dominated by X/Y Cuspers coming of age, while 2004 was largely Early Yers. 2008, Obama vs. McCain against the backdrop of the financial crisis, is unquestionably a Peak Y election, while Obama's re-election campaign in 2012 was for a mixture of Peak and Late Yers. Those voting for the first time in 2016 will largely be Late Yers and kids on the Y/Z Cusp.

If you used the same formula for first-time Gen X voters, it would come out something like this:

1980: Boomer/X Cusp or Gen Jonesers
1984: Early Xers
1988: Peak Xers
1992: Peak/Late Xers
1996: Late Xers
Yeah, I say that's correct and I agree that this election could be seen as the Y/Z cusp for those who are first time voters. That means in 2020, you can pretty much say that will be the first election where oldest Centennials (Z) will be largely voting (depends on when tne generation begins).


I don't think so. Generations typically last 20 years, with the exception of Generation X, which lasted 17. Millennials were called millennials in the first place because they graduated high school at the turn of the Millennium–the year 2000. Class of 2000 is widely considered the first Millennials, and for simplicities' sake, the Class of 2019 will be the last full Millennial graduating class. In the span of 1000 years, 20 is nothing, making it the perfect boundaries for this generation. The oldest members Homeland generation don't even start high school until the fall of this year; Class of 2020 are the first Homelanders (with the exception of those born in 2001–the very final Millennials).

I totally disagree with this. Since the youngest millennials graduate in 2019 (in my view), that would mean the 2020 elections would be the first Presidential Election in which all Millennials will be able to vote, since those born in 2001 will be 19 or almost 19 years old. President Obama is the president that best represents Millennials and caters to their views, I'll give you that.

The Class of 2018 are the youngest people I have seriously interacted with (because they are just now old enough to get a job and I work with them) and they are still very much Millennial, ranging from their tastes to their personality to their views about the world. They are just as Millennial as someone who graduated high school in the aughts. In my opinion older Millennials are 1982-1991 and younger Millennials are 1992-2001 if you want to split the generation in half. People born in 2000 just don't represent a completely different generation. I haven't seriously interacted with people born in 2001 (Class of 2019), but I'm pretty confident they won't be much different.
Yes, that's correct; however, I've read some comments sometime ago from those part of the C/O '99 and 2000 and they said that they were never considered the last HS graduation class for Generation X and that the older people made it a big deal out of nothing.

By that logic, that means the C/O 2000 had the very last Xers (the late '81 people)

I have interacted with them as well (I know quite a few) and I noticed they have traits of both generations such as teamwork and being pragmatic. Hopefully in the next few years, this generation does end at 2000/01 because these researchers think that the Centennial generation begins with 1995/96 using factors such as 2016 being the first Z election, not remembering 9/11, and wanting more privacy.


Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 06/06/16 at 12:37 am


because these researchers think that the Centennial generation begins with 1995/96 using factors such as 2016 being the first Z election, not remembering 9/11, and wanting more privacy.

Myself and people I went to school with do recall 9/11 happening and also that time; the thing is, we just were too young to understand back then......

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/06/16 at 7:02 pm

Pew Research Center needs to change their Gen X definition from 1965-1980 to 1965-1981, in my opinion.

Strauss and Howe use 82 as the starting year for Millennials because they were the first group to fully graduate in 2000 (corny I know, but it works).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 06/06/16 at 8:33 pm


Pew Research Center needs to change their Gen X definition from 1965-1980 to 1965-1981, in my opinion.

Strauss and Howe use 82 as the starting year for Millennials because they were the first group to fully graduate in 2000 (corny I know, but it works).


Yes, by adding just 1 more year to Gen X. I don't know where to put 1982, it could be part of either one of your choice.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 06/07/16 at 6:32 pm

I think it's weird how some people like to put the second half of the 90's in Gen Z rather than Gen Y, especially when Gen Y is supposed to represent the last people born in the 20th century and the 2nd millennium and Gen Z is supposed to represent the first people born in the 21st century and the 3rd millennium. I don't know why some people like to do this, but to me, it makes no sense at all for mid/late 90's people to be part of Gen Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/08/16 at 2:33 pm

The rise of Internet explorer and AOL in 1995, perhaps

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 2:42 pm


The rise of Internet explorer and AOL in 1995, perhaps


But the Internet was still new and barely anybody subscribed to AOL in 1995. Their peak wasn't even until the late 90s, when they got tons of subscribers for their service.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 06/08/16 at 2:44 pm


But the Internet was still new and barely anybody subscribed to AOL in 1995. Their peak wasn't even until the late 90s, when they got tons of subscribers for their service.

I remember that; AOL was popular during those years... and my first home internet service provider was AOL, which we had in the early 2000s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 06/08/16 at 3:04 pm


I remember that; AOL was popular during those years... and my first home internet service provider was AOL, which we had in the early 2000s.


and I remember AOL Instant Messenger.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 3:07 pm


and I remember AOL Instant Messenger.


AIM used to be really good in the 2000s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 06/08/16 at 5:39 pm


and I remember AOL Instant Messenger.

AIM used to be really good in the 2000s.

It was sorta like a precursor to Facebook... being able to instant message people, but only if they were also on AOL with you.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 6:12 pm


It was sorta like a precursor to Facebook... being able to instant message people, but only if they were also on AOL with you.


It was like a precursor to Skype, but without video and audio calling.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/08/16 at 10:39 pm


Myself and people I went to school with do recall 9/11 happening and also that time; the thing is, we just were too young to understand back then......
True on that. However, I don't think anyone knew why the attack occurred in the first place at the time. All it was to us was an unexpected attack.


Pew Research Center needs to change their Gen X definition from 1965-1980 to 1965-1981, in my opinion.

Strauss and Howe use 82 as the starting year for Millennials because they were the first group to fully graduate in 2000 (corny I know, but it works).
Pew isn't the only one that uses that range. Other sites such as Huffington Post, Forbes, Thought Catalog, and even Buzzfeed uses that spectrum as well.


I think it's weird how some people like to put the second half of the 90's in Gen Z rather than Gen Y, especially when Gen Y is supposed to represent the last people born in the 20th century and the 2nd millennium and Gen Z is supposed to represent the first people born in the 21st century and the 3rd millennium. I don't know why some people like to do this, but to me, it makes no sense at all for mid/late 90's people to be part of Gen Z.
Zelek is correct about rise of the internet, but there could be other reasons not disputed on why Centennials begin at 1995 and not 2001 like it should be.

One thing I wanna ask, have you guys checked out Mark McCrindle? He's an Australian who follows Plurals (Z) and he already has plenty of information about them. He could also be the person who decided that Generation Z spans from 1995 to 2009 which is making people confused.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 06/08/16 at 11:04 pm


It was like a precursor to Skype, but without video and audio calling.

Oh yes, that too. But I myself don't really use Skype. (However, I do know someone who does.)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/09/16 at 11:53 am


It was like a precursor to Skype, but without video and audio calling.


This is why MSN is king. (the literal precursor to Skype) It had video and audio chat in the early 2000s :D I was on it all the time.


I think it's weird how some people like to put the second half of the 90's in Gen Z rather than Gen Y, especially when Gen Y is supposed to represent the last people born in the 20th century and the 2nd millennium and Gen Z is supposed to represent the first people born in the 21st century and the 3rd millennium. I don't know why some people like to do this, but to me, it makes no sense at all for mid/late 90's people to be part of Gen Z.


Millennial was supposed to represent people who were in school during the millennial era (1999/2000), not people born before 2000. I don't see many things that someone born 2000 has in common with someone born 1995, let alone the peak millennial years like 1985-1990. It's extremely iffy.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/09/16 at 11:56 am


This is why MSN is king. (the literal precursor to Skype) It had video and audio chat in the early 2000s :D I was on it all the time.


Well, it's obvious that MSN was the literal precursor to Skype. It was previously known as MSN Messenger, before Microsoft owned Skype at the time. But even in the early-mid 2000s, people were usually on AIM. I even remember having my aunt using AIM when I was only 4 and a half.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/09/16 at 12:04 pm


Well, it's obvious that MSN was the literal precursor to Skype. It was previously known as MSN Messenger, before Microsoft owned Skype at the time. But even in the early-mid 2000s, people were usually on AIM. I even remember having my aunt using AIM when I was only 4 and a half.


It depends on what country you were living in. In the US, AIM was the most popular instant messenger, but it wasn't popular outside of the country. I remember trying to make an account in 2006 or so, so I could talk to an American friend online, and you couldn't even make an account without an American ZIP code or some other hurdle.

In Canada/Europe/some parts of Asia, MSN was the most popular. In a lot of Asia, Yahoo! Instant Messenger was the most popular. Some people also liked to use ICQ.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/09/16 at 12:13 pm


It depends on what country you were living in. In the US, AIM was the most popular instant messenger, but it wasn't popular outside of the country. I remember trying to make an account in 2006 or so, so I could talk to an American friend online, and you couldn't even make an account without an American ZIP code or some other hurdle.

In Canada/Europe/some parts of Asia, MSN was the most popular. In a lot of Asia, Yahoo! Instant Messenger was the most popular. Some people also liked to use ICQ.


Well, I guess it makes sense since I'm an American. But with all due respect, AIM was like the American king for instant messengers. But MSN was also popular in the United States too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 06/09/16 at 2:49 pm


AIM used to be really good in the 2000s.


I always had it on my desktop all the time waiting for someone to come on.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 06/09/16 at 9:41 pm



I guess the updated generational chart could go something like this:

Gen X: 1965-1981
Gen Y: 1982-1986
Gen Z: 1987-present


How would you define the generations for real?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 06/09/16 at 10:16 pm


How would you define the generations for real?


I'd say my views are pretty much standard. The only thing is I'm not that big of a fan of hard cut-off points when it comes to generations, so I tend to rely heavily on the concept of "cusps". Therefore, I'd probably do something like this:

Core Boomers: 1946-1956
Gen Jones: 1957-1964
Gen X: 1965-1979
Gen X/Y Cusp: 1980-1982
Gen Y: 1983-1996
Gen Y/Z Cusp: 1997-2000
Gen Z: 2001-present?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 06/10/16 at 1:36 pm


I always had it on my desktop all the time waiting for someone to come on.

I remember those days as well.

I called it a precursor to Facebook chat in my previous post, because you could conveniently instant-message someone and they could do the same in return. Kinda like you can do on FB.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 06/10/16 at 2:57 pm


I remember those days as well.

I called it a precursor to Facebook chat in my previous post, because you could conveniently instant-message someone and they could do the same in return. Kinda like you can do on FB.



same thing with Skype but without the video chat.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/17/16 at 2:25 pm

Overall, generations are arbitrary af and you're never going to find a single starting date or a cutoff date.

I know a guy born on January 1 1980 who wants to throw a chair out the window because he's considered a Millennial by numerous definitions, and missed dodging intense media hatred because he wasn't born a day earlier. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 06/17/16 at 4:38 pm


I'd say my views are pretty much standard. The only thing is I'm not that big of a fan of hard cut-off points when it comes to generations, so I tend to rely heavily on the concept of "cusps". Therefore, I'd probably do something like this:

Core Boomers: 1946-1956
Gen Jones: 1957-1964
Gen X: 1965-1979
Gen X/Y Cusp: 1980-1982
Gen Y: 1983-1996
Gen Y/Z Cusp: 1997-2000
Gen Z: 2001-present?


Aaaaaa!...Now there are cusps?! WTH ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/20/16 at 3:59 pm

I have proof that 1988 borns (or university class of 2010) are Y/Z cusp. My mom's friend's daughter came up to my room because she had nothing better to do, and I was about to start watching Better Call Saul. We were on the same episode, so that was convenient. As we were watching, she was on her phone the entire time, and I had to pause every 3-4 minutes and explain what was going on. Not fun. :( She graduated from the same university as me but in 2010. Y/Z cusp confirmed. A mess.

I have proof that 2005 borns are Gen Z (like you needed any). I drove to my friend's house and I dragged my 2005 born sisters along with me because my friend has a little sister born 2004, so they could play together. I let them have their iPad in the car, because otherwise they'd tell me to put on their terrible Disney music, but as we reached their place, they wanted to take their iPads inside. I'm like "you don't need that, you're just playing with his sister, just leave it in the car". They weren't having any of it, so I let them take it inside. Anyway after hanging out with my friend and when it was time to leave, I noticed my friend's sister was all alone in the living room watching TV. I asked her where my sisters were, and they were upstairs in her room playing on their iPads all alone. Terrible. Gen Z confirmed. A mess.

I have proof that late 2010/2011 borns are Z/Alpha cusp. I was at a summer camp initiation because me and my parents want to get rid of the kids for the summer. They were having this sing-along, and there was this 5 and a half year old who got to choose the next song. The guitarist asked if she wanted him to play Frozen's Let It Go, but she said that she didn't know the song  :o :o :o Z/Alpha cusp confirmed. A mess.

Boring story, but 1996 borns are Gen Y. My brother's roommate came over for dinner. He's 19 years old and going into 4th year of university, extremely smart kid. Anyway, in the middle of our conversation he starts b*tching about people who talk like "that's so lit fam" and hated on Timberland boots. Gen Y confirmed. A mess.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/21/16 at 8:37 pm

lol

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/21/16 at 8:39 pm

So, I was thinking about this generation debate and I wanted to clear a few things regarding the X/Y cusp.

First, Millennials are those between 1977/78 and 1997/98. What some people are not aware of is that the name comes from graduating high school around the millennium (which the oldest members did). As for the name, there are other terms for this generation as well like Y2K and Echo Boomers (which both were used back then to explain this peer group). Generation Z AKA Plurals, Centennials, Founders or Homelanders, are the generation in school today and they are currently 18 and under.

Second, some folks should know is that generations shouldn't even be defined by technology as the older groups never were. They should be described with attributes, events and other misc. Yes, the PC, Radio , TV and the Telephone made history, but they never at one point described any of the generations who witnessed them.

Something else I wanted to point out is that the birth rate had returned to increasing in 1977 (which could be the reason why that's the beginning) and continued to rise. In addition, the school experience is not discussed often like it should be. Excluding technology, X'ers were generally finished with school before 2000 and were either in their 30s and/or approaching it. Millennials, on the other hand, were still in the classroom throughout the decade and well in the 2000s and were mainly adolescents at the time.

If you were in elementary school in the 90s, there's no way you could be an Xer. They were mostly done by the late 80s. As for secondary school (both MS and HS), only the oldest Echo Boomers were there in the 90s as the rest were there later in the decade and into the 2000s. I mean how can anyone be in secondary school in the late 90s and 00s and be considered X? It makes no sense. Even if you were in college in the early 2000s, you would still be a Millennial because by then, the atmosphere was clearly Echo-Boomer and the environment of the Xers had already diminished.

Now I wanted say something about voting. No Millennial could ever vote for Bill Clinton as they were too young and by 2000, they were barely eligible to vote for Bush/Gore as well. Generation Y2K were not even a driving force in the voting polls until the 2008 election as half were now eligible to vote by then. If you could not vote for Clinton in the 90s, you're definitely a Millennial.

Furthermore, most Xers were 30 and over, and were already having families. The Millennials were no where near that age group until a few years ago and were/are mostly still in their 20s in the 2000s and right now.

Now regarding technology, yes it was rising rapidly in the 00s, but were Echo Boomers really using it as much as they are today? Keep in mind that cell phones even 10 years ago were still standard, slide or flip and that everything else such as social media, searching online and even ordering products were widely used with PCs.

I also wanted to dispel the stereotypes about this generation. How did we even become the safe-spaced, whiny, extremely PCed and "can't live without technology" generation? We aren't even like that! All my friends and I are part of this generation and I don't see any of them fitting into any of those labels. I even have some older Millennial friends and they are absolutely not like that either. With all of those negative stereotypes associated with this generation that are clearly not true, I don't understand what's wrong with being a Millennial. Yeah, there are some out there who are pessimistic and entitled, but that's not all of them. The media seems to forgotten there are plenty of us who are positive, diligent, and not obnoxious. In addition, we're not some sexless, jobless and lazy freaks either. Many of us actually have jobs/careers, homes/apartments, are married and/or even have children.

Now, what researchers forget is that generations are not monolithic. They need to be split into two groups. It definitely creates less confusion and is a much better way. For example, the Older Millennials and Younger Millennials

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 06/21/16 at 9:40 pm


So, I was thinking about this generation debate and I wanted to clear a few things regarding the X/Y cusp.

First, Millennials are those between 1977/78 and 1997/98. What some people are not aware of is that the name comes from graduating high school around the millennium (which the oldest members did). As for the name, there are other terms for this generation as well like Y2K and Echo Boomers (which both were used back then to explain this peer group). Generation Z AKA Plurals, Centennials, Founders or Homelanders, are the generation in school today and they are currently 18 and under.

Second, some folks should know is that generations shouldn't even be defined by technology as the older groups never were. They should be described with attributes, events and other misc. Yes, the PC, Radio , TV and the Telephone made history, but they never at one point described any of the generations who witnessed them.

Something else I wanted to point out is that the birth rate had returned to increasing in 1977 (which could be the reason why that's the beginning) and continued to rise. In addition, the school experience is not discussed often like it should be. Excluding technology, X'ers were generally finished with school before 2000 and were either in their 30s and/or approaching it. Millennials, on the other hand, were still in the classroom throughout the decade and well in the 2000s and were mainly adolescents at the time.

If you were in elementary school in the 90s, there's no way you could be an Xer. They were mostly done by the late 80s. As for secondary school (both MS and HS), only the oldest Echo Boomers were there in the 90s as the rest were there later in the decade and into the 2000s. I mean how can anyone be in secondary school in the late 90s and 00s and be considered X? It makes no sense. Even if you were in college in the early 2000s, you would still be a Millennial because by then, the atmosphere was clearly Echo-Boomer and the environment of the Xers had already diminished.

Now I wanted say something about voting. No Millennial could ever vote for Bill Clinton as they were too young and by 2000, they were barely eligible to vote for Bush/Gore as well. Generation Y2K were not even a driving force in the voting polls until the 2008 election as half were now eligible to vote by then. If you could not vote for Clinton in the 90s, you're definitely a Millennial.

Furthermore, most Xers were 30 and over, and were already having families. The Millennials were no where near that age group until a few years ago and were/are mostly still in their 20s in the 2000s and right now.

Now regarding technology, yes it was rising rapidly in the 00s, but were Echo Boomers really using it as much as they are today? Keep in mind that cell phones even 10 years ago were still standard, slide or flip and that everything else such as social media, searching online and even ordering products were widely used with PCs.

I also wanted to dispel the stereotypes about this generation. How did we even become the safe-spaced, whiny, extremely PCed and "can't live without technology" generation? We aren't even like that! All my friends and I are part of this generation and I don't see any of them fitting into any of those labels. I even have some older Millennial friends and they are absolutely not like that either. With all of those negative stereotypes associated with this generation that are clearly not true, I don't understand what's wrong with being a Millennial. Yeah, there are some out there who are pessimistic and entitled, but that's not all of them. The media seems to forgotten there are plenty of us who are positive, diligent, and not obnoxious. In addition, we're not some sexless, jobless and lazy freaks either. Many of us actually have jobs/careers, homes/apartments, are married and/or even have children.

Now, what researchers forget is that generations are not monolithic. They need to be split into two groups. It definitely creates less confusion and is a much better way. For example, the Older Millennials and Younger Millennials



I'm not going to lie. These stereotypes are mostly true for Millennials in my area. The ones around here, lack individualism, and basically worship Apple/Google. Now, my dad lives in Michigan, so I visit there, every once and a while. The millennials around there are actually pretty cool, and seem to have more personality. So it may depend on where you live. But I can definitely speak for the Silicon Valley. There are exceptions, even where I'm from, but they are super rare. You'd have to see it to believe it. Trust me.

Now I do completely agree that millennials should be split, since they are a huge generation. In fact, I also think the boomer generation should be split for the same reason..

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/21/16 at 10:05 pm


I'm not going to lie. These stereotypes are mostly true for Millennials in my area. The ones around here, lack individualism, and basically worship Apple/Google. Now, my dad lives in Michigan, so I visit there, every once and a while. The millennials around there are actually pretty cool, and seem to have more personality. So it may depend on where you live. But I can definitely speak for the Silicon Valley. There are exceptions, even where I'm from, but they are super rare. You'd have to see it to believe it. Trust me.

Now I do completely agree that millennials should be split, since they are a huge generation. In fact, I also think the boomer generation should be split for the same reason..
Maybe one day I'll take a trip up there.

As for the bold, same here. Splitting the Millennial generation is definitely a good idea ans so with the Boomer generation. Since the former is about 20 years, both groups should have 9 or 10 years within them. For the latter, it's 18 so each cohort would have 9 years.   

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 06/22/16 at 12:36 am


I have proof that 1988 borns (or university class of 2010) are Y/Z cusp. My mom's friend's daughter came up to my room because she had nothing better to do, and I was about to start watching Better Call Saul. We were on the same episode, so that was convenient. As we were watching, she was on her phone the entire time, and I had to pause every 3-4 minutes and explain what was going on. Not fun. :( She graduated from the same university as me but in 2010. Y/Z cusp confirmed. A mess.

I have proof that 2005 borns are Gen Z (like you needed any). I drove to my friend's house and I dragged my 2005 born sisters along with me because my friend has a little sister born 2004, so they could play together. I let them have their iPad in the car, because otherwise they'd tell me to put on their terrible Disney music, but as we reached their place, they wanted to take their iPads inside. I'm like "you don't need that, you're just playing with his sister, just leave it in the car". They weren't having any of it, so I let them take it inside. Anyway after hanging out with my friend and when it was time to leave, I noticed my friend's sister was all alone in the living room watching TV. I asked her where my sisters were, and they were upstairs in her room playing on their iPads all alone. Terrible. Gen Z confirmed. A mess.

I have proof that late 2010/2011 borns are Z/Alpha cusp. I was at a summer camp initiation because me and my parents want to get rid of the kids for the summer. They were having this sing-along, and there was this 5 and a half year old who got to choose the next song. The guitarist asked if she wanted him to play Frozen's Let It Go, but she said that she didn't know the song  :o :o :o Z/Alpha cusp confirmed. A mess.

Boring story, but 1996 borns are Gen Y. My brother's roommate came over for dinner. He's 19 years old and going into 4th year of university, extremely smart kid. Anyway, in the middle of our conversation he starts b*tching about people who talk like "that's so lit fam" and hated on Timberland boots. Gen Y confirmed. A mess.

Slowpoke, you are one funny dude!! XD ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 06/22/16 at 12:23 pm


I have proof that 1988 borns (or university class of 2010) are Y/Z cusp. My mom's friend's daughter came up to my room because she had nothing better to do, and I was about to start watching Better Call Saul. We were on the same episode, so that was convenient. As we were watching, she was on her phone the entire time, and I had to pause every 3-4 minutes and explain what was going on. Not fun. :( She graduated from the same university as me but in 2010. Y/Z cusp confirmed. A mess.


I can top that. I have an aunt, born in 1962, that spends more time on her iPhone than a 16-year-old girl. She's constantly texting, or updating her status on Facebook, or checking her friend's Twitter pages, or whatever. You wanna talk about a mess? That means that early '60s babies have now been shifted all the way from Gen Jones to the Y/Z Cusp! :o

I think Neil Howe needs to write another Generations book to explain this situation as quick as possible. Otherwise, my grandparents are going to be Millennials pretty soon!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/22/16 at 7:03 pm


I have proof that 1988 borns (or university class of 2010) are Y/Z cusp. My mom's friend's daughter came up to my room because she had nothing better to do, and I was about to start watching Better Call Saul. We were on the same episode, so that was convenient. As we were watching, she was on her phone the entire time, and I had to pause every 3-4 minutes and explain what was going on. Not fun. :( She graduated from the same university as me but in 2010. Y/Z cusp confirmed. A mess.

I have proof that 2005 borns are Gen Z (like you needed any). I drove to my friend's house and I dragged my 2005 born sisters along with me because my friend has a little sister born 2004, so they could play together. I let them have their iPad in the car, because otherwise they'd tell me to put on their terrible Disney music, but as we reached their place, they wanted to take their iPads inside. I'm like "you don't need that, you're just playing with his sister, just leave it in the car". They weren't having any of it, so I let them take it inside. Anyway after hanging out with my friend and when it was time to leave, I noticed my friend's sister was all alone in the living room watching TV. I asked her where my sisters were, and they were upstairs in her room playing on their iPads all alone. Terrible. Gen Z confirmed. A mess.

I have proof that late 2010/2011 borns are Z/Alpha cusp. I was at a summer camp initiation because me and my parents want to get rid of the kids for the summer. They were having this sing-along, and there was this 5 and a half year old who got to choose the next song. The guitarist asked if she wanted him to play Frozen's Let It Go, but she said that she didn't know the song  :o :o :o Z/Alpha cusp confirmed. A mess.

Boring story, but 1996 borns are Gen Y. My brother's roommate came over for dinner. He's 19 years old and going into 4th year of university, extremely smart kid. Anyway, in the middle of our conversation he starts b*tching about people who talk like "that's so lit fam" and hated on Timberland boots. Gen Y confirmed. A mess.



I can top that. I have an aunt, born in 1962, that spends more time on her iPhone than a 16-year-old girl. She's constantly texting, or updating her status on Facebook, or checking her friend's Twitter pages, or whatever. You wanna talk about a mess? That means that early '60s babies have now been shifted all the way from Gen Jones to the Y/Z Cusp! :o

I think Neil Howe needs to write another Generations book to explain this situation as quick as possible. Otherwise, my grandparents are going to be Millennials pretty soon!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/24/16 at 10:28 pm


I can top that. I have an aunt, born in 1962, that spends more time on her iPhone than a 16-year-old girl. She's constantly texting, or updating her status on Facebook, or checking her friend's Twitter pages, or whatever. You wanna talk about a mess? That means that early '60s babies have now been shifted all the way from Gen Jones to the Y/Z Cusp! :o

I think Neil Howe needs to write another Generations book to explain this situation as quick as possible. Otherwise, my grandparents are going to be Millennials pretty soon!


What a mess! She sounds like my 1966 born mom. She's on Facebook, Skype and WhatsApp 24/7 and takes ten selfies a day minimum. She's always playing Candy Crush, Frozen and other games all the time too. An X/Z cusp, a monstrosity. A mess!

But even before smartphones, she was on the phone 24/7 anyway, always taking to her friends. It was no fun in the dial-up days, it was the same thing as having no Internet for me.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/25/16 at 9:40 am


What a mess! She sounds like my 1966 born mom. She's on Facebook, Skype and WhatsApp 24/7 and takes ten selfies a day minimum. She's always playing Candy Crush, Frozen and other games all the time too. An X/Z cusp, a monstrosity. A mess!

But even before smartphones, she was on the phone 24/7 anyway, always taking to her friends. It was no fun in the dial-up days, it was the same thing as having no Internet for me.  ;D


That seems outrageous towards 1966 babies, since they didn't have the Internet through most of their life.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 07/01/16 at 9:30 pm

For the purpose of geekiness, I've taken Google's suggestion for Millennial years and given my thoughts on them. ;D

http://i.imgur.com/aW5HosR.png

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/01/16 at 10:18 pm


For the purpose of geekiness, I've taken Google's suggestion for Millennial years and given my thoughts on them. ;D

http://i.imgur.com/aW5HosR.png


I don't see 1987 on there, so I guess I dodged the bullet! Gen Y > Millennials all the way!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 07/01/16 at 10:19 pm


I don't see 1987 on there, so I guess I dodged the bullet! Gen Y > Millennials all the way!

lol ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/01/16 at 10:28 pm


lol ;D


In all seriousness, I do know one frequent visitor to the boards that will not be pleased to see 1982 listed as Millennial: Yes. :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/01/16 at 10:50 pm


For the purpose of geekiness, I've taken Google's suggestion for Millennial years and given my thoughts on them. ;D

http://i.imgur.com/aW5HosR.png



In all seriousness, I do know one frequent visitor to the boards that will not be pleased to see 1982 listed as Millennial: Yes. :P


I'm aware it's a joke, but what's wrong with being a Millennial? It truly seems like some people are so ashamed to be one and hate this curse that they rather be an Xer or even Y (which was actually a placeholder) anyday than a Millennial.

Some of them even forget those stereotypes aren't remotely true and if they are, then it is a small minority. The majority definitely are not like the stereotypes being described to them.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/02/16 at 7:56 pm


In all seriousness, I do know one frequent visitor to the boards that will not be pleased to see 1982 listed as Millennial: Yes. :P


Jordan doesn't really care, unless you're talking about someone else.  ;D

The more people deny being millennial, the more millennial they look. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/02/16 at 8:16 pm


Jordan doesn't really care, unless you're talking about someone else.  ;D

The more people deny being millennial, the more millennial they look. ;D
This! I'm starting to see that denial with people who are in their 30s. They seem to think that Millennials are those in their teens and 20s when that's not true at all, and they keep saying they are part of the X generation (some folks have this mindset where Gen X ends in 1984/85 ;D ;D ;D) when they are truly Millennials themselves.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 07/02/16 at 9:36 pm


In all seriousness, I do know one frequent visitor to the boards that will not be pleased to see 1982 listed as Millennial: Yes. :P


I am not amused.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/02/16 at 9:39 pm


This! I'm starting to see that denial with people who are in their 30s. They seem to think that Millennials are those in their teens and 20s when that's not true at all, and they keep saying they are part of the X generation (some folks have this mindset where Gen X ends in 1984/85 ;D ;D ;D) when they are truly Millennials themselves.


It's not just '80s babies doing this either. I've seen guys born as late as 1992 or 1993 complaining about "Millennials", and bragging about how their better from growing up with a "Gen Y childhood". ;D

It's all really dumb, but not unexpected. Basically since the dawn of time folks have been complaining about "kids today", and blaming all of the ills of society on the younger generation. The WWII Generation did it with Boomers back in the '60s/'70s, Boomers did it with Gen X in the '80s/'90s, and it's happening now with Millennials in the '00s/'10s. In the 2020's, when all Millennials are in their thirties and forties, the cycle will continue with Gen Z/Plurals.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/02/16 at 9:47 pm


This! I'm starting to see that denial with people who are in their 30s. They seem to think that Millennials are those in their teens and 20s when that's not true at all, and they keep saying they are part of the X generation (some folks have this mindset where Gen X ends in 1984/85 ;D ;D ;D) when they are truly Millennials themselves.


I think if you don't remember Reagan being the president in his first term, you aren't Gen X. If you don't remember 9/11, you aren't Millennial. If you don't remember the JFK assassination, you aren't a baby boomer. What do you think of these rules of thumb?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/02/16 at 10:35 pm


I am not amused.


Blink-182 album. Thoughts?


It's not just '80s babies doing this either. I've seen guys born as late as 1992 or 1993 complaining about "Millennials", and bragging about how their better from growing up with a "Gen Y childhood". ;D

It's all really dumb, but not unexpected. Basically since the dawn of time folks have been complaining about "kids today", and blaming all of the ills of society on the younger generation. The WWII Generation did it with Boomers back in the '60s/'70s, Boomers did it with Gen X in the '80s/'90s, and it's happening now with Millennials in the '00s/'10s. In the 2020's, when all Millennials are in their thirties and forties, the cycle will continue with Gen Z/Plurals.


The slander millennials get seems to be more malicious though. It feels like it's mostly rich boomers complaining that their kids are poor. *shrugs* Maybe I'm reading too much NYT.


I think if you don't remember Reagan being the president in his first term, you aren't Gen X. If you don't remember 9/11, you aren't Millennial. If you don't remember the JFK assassination, you aren't a baby boomer. What do you think of these rules of thumb?


I'd say Watergate for Boomers, Cold War for Gen X (understanding the context of the fall of the Berlin Wall as it was happening), and yeah, a pre-9/11 world for Millennials. The events you listed are important for generational identity too though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 07/02/16 at 10:41 pm

While I don't care much for my generation's culture aside from Pokemon, I won't deny that I'm a millennial. The only thing that I totally resist is being categorized, even slightly, with Generation Z. I originally overlooked but then saw somebody post something that said people like me, born in 1992, had some traits of Gen-Z. I personally consider myself closer to Gen-X than Gen-Z, even if some of my activities and interests growing up were more modern than your typical X'er.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/02/16 at 10:46 pm


The slander millennials get seems to be more malicious though. It feels like it's mostly rich boomers complaining that their kids are poor. *shrugs* Maybe I'm reading too much NYT.


It's probably being magnified considerably by the internet, yes.

I try to ignore it, but I will admit that the criticism does bother me just because of how dumb it is. How can Millennials be responsible for all of the USA's many problems when the bulk of us are just barely out of college trying to get our start in life? Are we the ones that managed to turn a budget surplus into budget deficit by lowering taxes on the rich while simultaneously invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Did we cause the 2008 economic meltdown? Are we the reason behind the crippling partisan gridlock in Congress that makes passing even the simplest of legislation impossible? No, that would be (mostly) Boomers.

Sorry. Like I said, I try to ignore the hate, but I'm not doing a very good job. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 07/02/16 at 11:47 pm

Basically, it all boils down to this: blame the boomers!!!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/03/16 at 5:00 am


I think if you don't remember Reagan being the president in his first term, you aren't Gen X. If you don't remember 9/11, you aren't Millennial. If you don't remember the JFK assassination, you aren't a baby boomer. What do you think of these rules of thumb?

You're using political events to determine what generation you're in?  ??? ??? ???
Cause my Dad who was born in 1959 definitely ain't Gen X. He would probably curse you out if you tried to associate him with that. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


I'm mildly curious, what birth years do you think are the generations?? :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/03/16 at 5:10 am


If you don't remember the JFK assassination, you aren't a baby boomer.

And if you're going to use a political event, I'd go with Watergate. It seems like you're focusing too much on the older members of the generation.I bet you think the 60s were the definitive boomer decade. You gotta look at ALL cohorts.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: TheKid99 on 07/03/16 at 12:06 pm

Gen X is the middle child in between two media attention grabbing generations, and they are in the middle politically, they dealt with the Recession much worse off than Boomers and the Millenials did, Housing bubble disproportionately affected them, dot com bubble also.... now they are all entering Middle Age and most of them have been screwed.... the first generation not to do better than their parents.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/03/16 at 2:04 pm


And if you're going to use a political event, I'd go with Watergate. It seems like you're focusing too much on the older members of the generation.I bet you think the 60s were the definitive boomer decade. You gotta look at ALL cohorts.


The thing is people born in 1956 and even 1957 would remember the JFK assassination so I'm not excluding younger members. Even older Gen X members would have some memories of Watergate so that would be including some Gen Xers in the Boomer generation. I think the "core" of the boomer youth era is 1964-1974 or early 1975. The beginnings would be either the JFK assassination in 1963 or Beatlemania in 1964 and the end would be either Nixon resigning in 1974 or the end of the Vietnam war in early 1975. The rest of 1975-1982 is also Boomer but not as much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/03/16 at 2:17 pm


The thing is people born in 1956 and even 1957 would remember the JFK assassination so I'm not excluding younger members. Even older Gen X members would have some memories of Watergate so that would be including some Gen Xers in the Boomer generation. I think the "core" of the boomer youth era is 1964-1974 or early 1975. The beginnings would be either the JFK assassination in 1963 or Beatlemania in 1964 and the end would be either Nixon resigning in 1974 or the end of the Vietnam war in early 1975. The rest of 1975-1982 is also Boomer but not as much.

I guess it's fair enough. LBJ's term was the beginning of the boomer culture, but I think Nixon and Ford's terms were the peak of Boomer culture. But the overall peak years were 1967-1975.
I'm just curious what birth years you think are the boomers.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/03/16 at 2:41 pm


I guess it's fair enough. LBJ's term was the beginning of the boomer culture, but I think Nixon and Ford's terms were the peak of Boomer culture. But the overall peak years were 1967-1975.
I'm just curious what birth years you think are the boomers.

1945-1957. 1958-1964 is cusp. What do you think of my range?
I think the absolute core would be born in the early 1950s like 1950-1952.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/03/16 at 8:28 pm


It's not just '80s babies doing this either. I've seen guys born as late as 1992 or 1993 complaining about "Millennials", and bragging about how their better from growing up with a "Gen Y childhood". ;D

It's all really dumb, but not unexpected. Basically since the dawn of time folks have been complaining about "kids today", and blaming all of the ills of society on the younger generation. The WWII Generation did it with Boomers back in the '60s/'70s, Boomers did it with Gen X in the '80s/'90s, and it's happening now with Millennials in the '00s/'10s. In the 2020's, when all Millennials are in their thirties and forties, the cycle will continue with Gen Z/Plurals.
Damn really? ;D. Oh and that reminds me. I found a video about your statement 2 months ago where the person in the video thinks there's a difference between 90s babies and Millennials. ;D ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n648Rh_d3Y


I think if you don't remember Reagan being the president in his first term, you aren't Gen X. If you don't remember 9/11, you aren't Millennial. If you don't remember the JFK assassination, you aren't a baby boomer. What do you think of these rules of thumb?
Well these can be good, but there are other events you could also factor in as alternatives such as the Vietnam War, Iraq, The Challenger and Great Recession.


While I don't care much for my generation's culture aside from Pokemon, I won't deny that I'm a millennial. The only thing that I totally resist is being categorized, even slightly, with Generation Z. I originally overlooked but then saw somebody post something that said people like me, born in 1992, had some traits of Gen-Z. I personally consider myself closer to Gen-X than Gen-Z, even if some of my activities and interests growing up were more modern than your typical X'er.
Same here! I never thought of myself as a Gen Zer because some or everything associated with them is either unknown to me and that I know and they don't.

Looking at that bumped 2006 thread, it was hilarious that someone really thought that HS was going to be majorly Z culture by the late 00s. That made no sense at all ;D ;D considering that by then, some people of this generation would still be adolescents.


It's probably being magnified considerably by the internet, yes.

I try to ignore it, but I will admit that the criticism does bother me just because of how dumb it is. How can Millennials be responsible for all of the USA's many problems when the bulk of us are just barely out of college trying to get our start in life? Are we the ones that managed to turn a budget surplus into budget deficit by lowering taxes on the rich while simultaneously invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Did we cause the 2008 economic meltdown? Are we the reason behind the crippling partisan gridlock in Congress that makes passing even the simplest of legislation impossible? No, that would be (mostly) Boomers.

Sorry. Like I said, I try to ignore the hate, but I'm not doing a very good job. ;D



Basically, it all boils down to this: blame the boomers!!!
Agreed!!! Millennials haven't done anything, so why are we being blamed? Moreover, the stereotypes about this generation are laughable ;D. Echo Boomers aren't whiny, entitled and selfish. In fact, some older people forgot that some Millennials already have careers, families, are married, have children and/or in their 30s. They seem to get left out the most.

Oh and the boomers aren't just to blame. The GIs and the Silents also played a role regarding the economy. While they did work hard to earn everything, they were certainly being greedy as well.

As for the critics, it was actually not that ago. Turns out generations have been judging each other since the early 20th century.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 07/04/16 at 6:00 am


Blink-182 album. Thoughts?


Holy sh!t, dude. It's good! Really good! Cynical sounds like it's right off of Dude Ranch! Some songs are a bit "off" and too new sounding for me but overall the album is very solid. Best thing that's come out of Pop Punk since 2003 and I mean that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/04/16 at 9:37 am

I suppose this year caters more to early 2000s pop punk fans.  :(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/04/16 at 7:51 pm


1945-1957. 1958-1964 is cusp. What do you think of my range?
I think the absolute core would be born in the early 1950s like 1950-1952.


I think the early 50s babies are the heart and soul of the boomers as well.
Regarding the birth years.... I REALLY hate using cusps. I'd say 1956 is the last peak boomer year. 1957-1960/61ish are the solid late boomers. Late 1961-1964 are the very late boomers aka generation jones.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/04/16 at 8:37 pm


I think the early 50s babies are the heart and soul of the boomers as well.
Regarding the birth years.... I REALLY hate using cusps. I'd say 1956 is the last peak boomer year. 1957-1960/61ish are the solid late boomers. Late 1961-1964 are the very late boomers aka generation jones.


I don't know why people use generation cusps. It doesn't make a lot of sense towards most people on the Internet. Even to me, despite using them for a year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/04/16 at 9:45 pm


I think the early 50s babies are the heart and soul of the boomers as well.
Regarding the birth years.... I REALLY hate using cusps. I'd say 1956 is the last peak boomer year. 1957-1960/61ish are the solid late boomers. Late 1961-1964 are the very late boomers aka generation jones.


Would someone born in late 1961 be a solid late boomer if they graduated class of 1979 with other 1961ers instead of class of 1980?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/04/16 at 10:04 pm


Would someone born in late 1961 be a solid late boomer if they graduated class of 1979 with other 1961ers instead of class of 1980?

I'm kinda undecided on that. I guess barely...
For example, I consider someone like Obama to be a solid late boomer. I hardly see Gen X characteristics in him.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/04/16 at 10:23 pm


It's probably being magnified considerably by the internet, yes.

I try to ignore it, but I will admit that the criticism does bother me just because of how dumb it is. How can Millennials be responsible for all of the USA's many problems when the bulk of us are just barely out of college trying to get our start in life? Are we the ones that managed to turn a budget surplus into budget deficit by lowering taxes on the rich while simultaneously invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Did we cause the 2008 economic meltdown? Are we the reason behind the crippling partisan gridlock in Congress that makes passing even the simplest of legislation impossible? No, that would be (mostly) Boomers.

Sorry. Like I said, I try to ignore the hate, but I'm not doing a very good job. ;D


In the prophetic words of millennial demigoddess Taylord Swift "haters gonna hate and the player gonna play" #dragHA #rekt #sorrynotsorry #swag

But seriously, you're right ;D Millennials get blamed too much when we've only got to do so little. There's also the problem of millennials getting blamed for a terrible economy. Housing prices here in Toronto are through the roof, average home price is creeping just around $1 million mark, it's $850k minimum for a townhouse, there's no way I or many people my age can afford that. It was easier in the 90s when everything was $200k-$300k, that's when most Gen X/Boomers bought their houses. Millennials are mostly locked out and still scolded for being lazy and too dependent.  :(


I think the early 50s babies are the heart and soul of the boomers as well.
Regarding the birth years.... I REALLY hate using cusps. I'd say 1956 is the last peak boomer year. 1957-1960/61ish are the solid late boomers. Late 1961-1964 are the very late boomers aka generation jones.


I would say 1955-1964 is Gen Jones. If you were too young to get drafted into Vietnam, then you're not the main Boomer cohort (1946-1954).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/04/16 at 10:29 pm


In the prophetic words of millennial demigoddess Taylord Swift "haters gonna hate and the player gonna play" #dragHA #rekt #sorrynotsorry #swag

But seriously, you're right ;D Millennials get blamed too much when we've only got to do so little. There's also the problem of millennials getting blamed for a terrible economy. Housing prices here in Toronto are through the roof, average home price is creeping just around $1 million mark, it's $850k minimum for a townhouse, there's no way I or many people my age can afford that. It was easier in the 90s when everything was $200k-$300k, that's when most Gen X/Boomers bought their houses. Millennials are mostly locked out and still scolded for being lazy and too dependent.  :(


I guess the best thing to happen would be another housing crash. Then the home values will go down to what they really are. If the banks don't get bailed out...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/04/16 at 10:51 pm


I guess the best thing to happen would be another housing crash. Then the home values will go down to what they really are. If the banks don't get bailed out...


That would suck for my parents who barely saved anything for retirement.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/04/16 at 11:55 pm


I would say 1955-1964 is Gen Jones. If you were too young to get drafted into Vietnam, then you're not the main Boomer cohort (1946-1954).

I don't know about mid 50s born being Gen Jones... I could see late 50s born like my Dad. But the mid 50s born?! Debatable.
I'm not sure about using Vietnam as the turning point. Besides the war ended in early 1975. 1955 and 1956 born were old enough.
I'd actually say if you didn't graduate before Nixon's resignation then you aren't a ''main'' boomer.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/05/16 at 11:42 am


I don't know why people use generation cusps. It doesn't make a lot of sense towards most people on the Internet. Even to me, despite using them for a year.
Tell that to the Oregon Trail generation (X/Y cusp). They are in a position where they don't identify with either group.


In the prophetic words of millennial demigoddess Taylord Swift "haters gonna hate and the player gonna play" #dragHA #rekt #sorrynotsorry #swag

But seriously, you're right ;D Millennials get blamed too much when we've only got to do so little. There's also the problem of millennials getting blamed for a terrible economy. Housing prices here in Toronto are through the roof, average home price is creeping just around $1 million mark, it's $850k minimum for a townhouse, there's no way I or many people my age can afford that. It was easier in the 90s when everything was $200k-$300k, that's when most Gen X/Boomers bought their houses. Millennials are mostly locked out and still scolded for being lazy and too dependent.  :(
.
I agree! I really hope this changes soon because it seems we get F'ed over for no reason even though the oldest are in their 30s. One thing I noticed is that even Boomers get blamed for everything currently although the blame needs to be placed on the GIs and Silents as well for making plans that didn't work in the end and that some were greedy themselves.

I would say 1955-1964 is Gen Jones. If you were too young to get drafted into Vietnam, then you're not the main Boomer cohort (1946-1954)


I don't know about mid 50s born being Gen Jones... I could see late 50s born like my Dad. But the mid 50s born?! Debatable.
I'm not sure about using Vietnam as the turning point. Besides the war ended in early 1975. 1955 and 1956 born were old enough.
I'd actually say if you didn't graduate before Nixon's resignation then you aren't a ''main'' boomer.
I'm having a hard time wondering why the older Boomers are the considered the main cohort while the younger ones are not? There's a reason the generation is divided into two groups. Both cohorts had their own culture.

Older BBs: JFK/MLK, Vietnam, Moon landing, Beatles, and Woodstock

Younger BBs: Watergate scandal, Disco, Afros, Grease, and platform shoes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/05/16 at 11:48 am


Tell that to the Oregon Trail generation (X/Y cusp). They are in a position where they don't identify with either group.


Yeah, but they could just identify on what decade they were kids. I'm technically part of Generation Z, but I'll rather identify as a 2000s kid because the generation labels are bullcrap.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/05/16 at 12:36 pm


Yeah, but they could just identify on what decade they were kids. I'm technically part of Generation Z, but I'll rather identify as a 2000s kid because the generation labels are bullcrap.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D. They should, but I think they don't see it that way.

They may be B.S., but they do bring us in a way. We wouldn't be in the same generations as our parents right?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/05/16 at 12:51 pm


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D. They should, but I think they don't see it that way.

They may be B.S., but they do bring us in a way. We wouldn't be in the same generations as our parents right?


Well of course we wouldn't be in the same generation as our parents. They had a very different childhood than I have.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/05/16 at 1:15 pm


Well of course we wouldn't be in the same generation as our parents. They had a very different childhood than I have.
Right! That's why generations exist. Now I know the labels are a problem, but that's because they either have a generic name and/or there untrue stereotypes about each generations.

Now the generational year span is generally 20-30 years as in between that range, most people begin to have their first child, get married, start their careers and have other goals finished.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/05/16 at 1:41 pm


Right! That's why generations exist. Now I know the labels are a problem, but that's because they either have a generic name and/or there untrue stereotypes about each generations.


But it just seems unfair whenever we use generations. I have no problem identifying myself as a 2000s kid, because I spent most of my childhood in the 2000s. Being part of Generation Z doesn't make any sense, because I had a lot of differences compared to 2010s kids, and they're technically in the same generation as me. Especially with those born in the early portions of their childhood decade. They're just hybrid kids.


Now the generational year span is generally 20-30 years as in between that range, most people begin to have their first child, get married, start their careers and have other goals finished.


Well, it makes sense when you use those type of things. I wouldn't deny that it would take 15-20 years for a couple to get married and have kids. My parents got married fifteen years after they met in college, and had me two years later. But with stuff like technology, it doesn't make it a lot of sense. Generation Z is considering the most technological generation, but I never used a tablet until I was about 11. That's the reason why I think people should just use their childhood decades to identify themselves. It worked well with 80s and 90s kids, so I suppose it could work even with 2000s kids.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 07/05/16 at 2:49 pm


Well of course we wouldn't be in the same generation as our parents. They had a very different childhood than I have.


My parent's generation was the 1950's and 1960's and mine was the 1980's and early 1990's.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/05/16 at 5:03 pm


My parent's generation was the 1950's and 1960's and mine was the 1980's and early 1990's.

Yeah. My parent's generation was the 70s and 80s. Mine is the 2000s and 2010s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 07/06/16 at 2:55 pm


Yeah. My parent's generation was the 70s and 80s. Mine is the 2000s and 2010s.


Do your parents care about today's generation?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/06/16 at 7:02 pm


Do your parents care about today's generation?

Not really.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/06/16 at 10:01 pm


Tell that to the Oregon Trail generation (X/Y cusp). They are in a position where they don't identify with either group.


Hmm, interesting. I've never heard the term "Oregon Trail generation" before. I wonder, am I considered a part of this generation? I remember playing Oregon Trail frequently on my elementary school's old Macintosh computers when I was in, like, 1st and 2nd grade.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/06/16 at 10:14 pm


Hmm, interesting. I've never heard the term "Oregon Trail generation" before. I wonder, am I considered a part of this generation? I remember playing Oregon Trail frequently on my elementary school's old Macintosh computers when I was in, like, 1st and 2nd grade.
No, because it's another name for those who are considered the X/Y Cusp although some of them keep thinking they're not Millennials ;D.

I have also heard the term Generation Catalano which describes the same X/Y transition.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 07/06/16 at 10:28 pm


Hmm, interesting. I've never heard the term "Oregon Trail generation" before. I wonder, am I considered a part of this generation? I remember playing Oregon Trail frequently on my elementary school's old Macintosh computers when I was in, like, 1st and 2nd grade.


Yeah, The Oregon Trail has been known to far more generations than just kids who grew up in the mid-80s. In fact, the game was technically made way back in 1971 for the HP 2100 before it caught on in the 80s. I'm a core/late millennial cusp, and I can definitely say from my experience that The Oregon Trail was a huge part of my childhood, even if it was the 1993 update with voiceovers, music, and images to accompany the journey.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 07/06/16 at 10:52 pm


Hmm, interesting. I've never heard the term "Oregon Trail generation" before. I wonder, am I considered a part of this generation? I remember playing Oregon Trail frequently on my elementary school's old Macintosh computers when I was in, like, 1st and 2nd grade.

I remember a very primitive version of it on one of those old computers with monochrome pixels. Never actually played it, though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/06/16 at 10:56 pm


Yeah, The Oregon Trail has been known to far more generations than just kids who grew up in the mid-80s. In fact, the game was technically made way back in 1971 for the HP 2100 before it caught on in the 80s. I'm a core/late millennial cusp, and I can definitely say from my experience that The Oregon Trail was a huge part of my childhood, even if it was the 1993 update with voiceovers, music, and images to accompany the journey.
From your statement, that means there's no way they can be the Oregon Trail cohort if everyone has at least once played it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 07/06/16 at 10:56 pm

Everyone has played Oregon Trail.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 07/06/16 at 10:58 pm


Everyone has played Oregon Trail.  ;D

Honestly, I never actually did play it, as I stated in my above post. I watched someone play it, though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 07/06/16 at 11:01 pm


Honestly, I never actually did play it, as I stated in my above post. I watched someone play it, though.


They basically made us play it, the school where I was from.  :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 07/06/16 at 11:09 pm


They basically made us play it, the school where I was from.  :)

That's fine. :) Like I said, no one forced anyone to play it where I went to school. However, it was an educational game about a real life migration route, so I can understand why kids would learn about it.

Most of the educational computer games I played, mostly in elementary school, were math oriented, and I was very good at those.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/07/16 at 8:27 am


Everyone has played Oregon Trail.  ;D


I never played Oregon Trail. Not even the sequels.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 07/07/16 at 2:57 pm


Not really.


mine either, My parents are like the Archie Bunker of this generation. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/09/16 at 4:51 pm


Same here! I never thought of myself as a Gen Zer because some or everything associated with them is either unknown to me and that I know and they don't.


1987 has a grain of Gen Z and 1992/1993 has traits of Gen Alpha.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/09/16 at 5:16 pm


Do your parents care about today's generation?


I don't think a lot of parents care about their child's generation. Unless they like it, but they'll rather go for something more mature.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 07/09/16 at 5:46 pm


I don't think a lot of parents care about their child's generation. Unless they like it, but they'll rather go for something more mature.



Today's parents don't know who most of today's generation music is, they mostly despise it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/09/16 at 10:04 pm


Yeah, The Oregon Trail has been known to far more generations than just kids who grew up in the mid-80s. In fact, the game was technically made way back in 1971 for the HP 2100 before it caught on in the 80s. I'm a core/late millennial cusp, and I can definitely say from my experience that The Oregon Trail was a huge part of my childhood, even if it was the 1993 update with voiceovers, music, and images to accompany the journey.


Yeah, Oregon Trail had a massively long reach, considering it's one of the very oldest educational computer games, and yet was still being played regularly in schools as late as the early '00s.

As I said, my main era of playing Oregon Trail at school was in 1st and 2nd grade, which was in 1993 and 1994, but I'm not sure if it was the updated version or not. The only computers we had in our computer lab at the time were those Apple Mac II's from the late '80s that were already pretty outdated by that point.


1987 has a grain of Gen Z


Them's fightin' words. >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/09/16 at 10:06 pm

I wish I was Gen Z instead of Millennial.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/09/16 at 10:55 pm


1987 has a grain of Gen Z and 1992/1993 has traits of Gen Alpha.
Like what?


I wish I was Gen Z instead of Millennial.
I feel like this has to with the untrue stereotypes abiut this generation I wish that would stop. I don't blame you for making this statement because no one wants to be talked about negatively where they felt they let the world down.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/10/16 at 12:56 am

Man. I think it's sad that y'all are ashamed to be millennial.  :o :\'(  I had no idea members of my generation were THAT embarrassed.... :-\\

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/10/16 at 1:01 am


I wish I was Gen Z instead of Millennial.

As a black dude, I wish I was an early Yer.  :\'(
After I've been witnessing what's been going on in our society and culutre. >:( >:( >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/10/16 at 1:10 am


Man. I think it's sad that y'all are ashamed to be millennial.  :o :\'(  I had no idea members of my generation were THAT embarrassed.... :-\\
Me too! Some are only being ashamed because its thanks to untrue generalizations that have been spewing around for no reason. Yes, some Millennial folks are lazy, entitled and whiny, but that's only a small fraction while the rest work hard, have careers, own homes, are married and/or have children.


As a black dude, I wish I was an early Yer.  :\'(
After I've been witnessing what's been going on in our society and culutre. >:( >:( >:(
I've had those same thoughts and it would have been great as well as we would have been able to avoid those negative stereotypes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/10/16 at 2:57 am


As a black dude, I wish I was an early Yer.  :\'(
After I've been witnessing what's been going on in our society and culutre. >:( >:( >:(


I agree that early Y African Americans witnessed the high water mark of the 90s. On the other hand, I think they'd be just as impacted and devastated by the negative events of today's world, unfortunately.


I wish I was Gen Z instead of Millennial.


Finally! I thought I was the only one on these boards who'd prefer to be born later, rather than earlier.  ;D My teenagehood would've been much easier if I was born 10 years later, if I had the choice laid out in front of me, I'd always choose to be born later. But seeing as I don't have the choice, I'm just thankful that the harsh experiences made me a stronger person. No point in dwelling on the past.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/16/16 at 5:52 pm

1979 - X/Y cusp leaning X (first election: 1998 midterms)
1980 - X/Y cusp leaning X
1981 - X/Y cusp leaning Y (2000 presidential)
1982 - X/Y cusp leaning Y
1983 - Early Y (2002 midterms)
1984 - Early Y
1985 - Pure Y (2004 presidential)
1986 - Pure Y
1987 - Pure Y (2006 midterms)
1988 - Pure Y
1989 - Pure Y (2008 presidential)
1990 - Pure Y
1991 - Pure Y (2010 midterms)
1992 - Pure Y
1993 - Late Y (2012 presidential)
1994 - Late Y
1995 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y (2014 midterms)
1996 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y
1997 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z (2016 presidential)
1998 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z
1999 - Early Z (2018 midterms)
2000 - Early Z
2001 - Pure Z (2020 presidential)
2002 - Pure Z

Shower thoughts. You can extend this backwards too :o

If you're born in December then you can punt yourself to the next year you poser.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/16/16 at 5:56 pm


1979 - X/Y cusp leaning X (first election: 1998 midterms)
1980 - X/Y cusp leaning X
1981 - X/Y cusp leaning Y (2000 presidential)
1982 - X/Y cusp leaning Y
1983 - Early Y (2002 midterms)
1984 - Early Y
1985 - Pure Y (2004 presidential)
1986 - Pure Y
1987 - Pure Y (2006 midterms)
1988 - Pure Y
1989 - Pure Y (2008 presidential)
1990 - Pure Y
1991 - Pure Y (2010 midterms)
1992 - Pure Y
1993 - Late Y (2012 presidential)
1994 - Late Y
1995 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y (2014 midterms)
1996 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y
1997 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z (2016 presidential)
1998 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z
1999 - Early Z (2018 midterms)
2000 - Early Z
2001 - Pure Z (2020 presidential)
2002 - Pure Z

Shower thoughts. You can extend this backwards too :o

If you're born in December then you can punt yourself to the next year you poser.


Well, 1999 and 2000 are both Early Z babies, so I don't mind that. Although, I think it should count for October and November babies, since they don't get older until the very end of the year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 07/16/16 at 6:06 pm


Man. I think it's sad that y'all are ashamed to be millennial.  :o :\'(  I had no idea members of my generation were THAT embarrassed.... :-\\


I'm not really ashamed or anything. I just find it very hard to relate to most people our age. Especially in the area I currently live in.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 07/16/16 at 6:08 pm


As a black dude, I wish I was an early Yer.  :\'(
After I've been witnessing what's been going on in our society and culutre. >:( >:( >:(


I would also like to be an early Yer. Hopefully things will improve someday.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 07/16/16 at 6:11 pm


1979 - X/Y cusp leaning X (first election: 1998 midterms)
1980 - X/Y cusp leaning X
1981 - X/Y cusp leaning Y (2000 presidential)
1982 - X/Y cusp leaning Y
1983 - Early Y (2002 midterms)
1984 - Early Y
1985 - Pure Y (2004 presidential)
1986 - Pure Y
1987 - Pure Y (2006 midterms)
1988 - Pure Y
1989 - Pure Y (2008 presidential)
1990 - Pure Y
1991 - Pure Y (2010 midterms)
1992 - Pure Y
1993 - Late Y (2012 presidential)
1994 - Late Y
1995 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y (2014 midterms)
1996 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y
1997 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z (2016 presidential)
1998 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z
1999 - Early Z (2018 midterms)
2000 - Early Z
2001 - Pure Z (2020 presidential)
2002 - Pure Z

Shower thoughts. You can extend this backwards too :o

If you're born in December then you can punt yourself to the next year you poser.


What about October?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/16/16 at 6:28 pm


1979 - X/Y cusp leaning X (first election: 1998 midterms)
1980 - X/Y cusp leaning X
1981 - X/Y cusp leaning Y (2000 presidential)
1982 - X/Y cusp leaning Y
1983 - Early Y (2002 midterms)
1984 - Early Y
1985 - Pure Y (2004 presidential)
1986 - Pure Y
1987 - Pure Y (2006 midterms)
1988 - Pure Y
1989 - Pure Y (2008 presidential)
1990 - Pure Y
1991 - Pure Y (2010 midterms)
1992 - Pure Y
1993 - Late Y (2012 presidential)
1994 - Late Y
1995 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y (2014 midterms)
1996 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y
1997 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z (2016 presidential)
1998 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z
1999 - Early Z (2018 midterms)
2000 - Early Z
2001 - Pure Z (2020 presidential)
2002 - Pure Z

Shower thoughts. You can extend this backwards too :o

If you're born in December then you can punt yourself to the next year you poser.
This is a good list to determine which generation someone is apart of, but you have to factor in other things as well. Eligible for voting is only one of the elements.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/16/16 at 6:36 pm


1979 - X/Y cusp leaning X (first election: 1998 midterms)
1980 - X/Y cusp leaning X
1981 - X/Y cusp leaning Y (2000 presidential)
1982 - X/Y cusp leaning Y
1983 - Early Y (2002 midterms)
1984 - Early Y
1985 - Pure Y (2004 presidential)
1986 - Pure Y
1987 - Pure Y (2006 midterms)
1988 - Pure Y
1989 - Pure Y (2008 presidential)
1990 - Pure Y
1991 - Pure Y (2010 midterms)
1992 - Pure Y
1993 - Late Y (2012 presidential)
1994 - Late Y
1995 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y (2014 midterms)
1996 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y
1997 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z (2016 presidential)
1998 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z
1999 - Early Z (2018 midterms)
2000 - Early Z
2001 - Pure Z (2020 presidential)
2002 - Pure Z

Shower thoughts. You can extend this backwards too :o

If you're born in December then you can punt yourself to the next year you poser.




What if someone born December 1978 has an extremely good memory as in comparable to the memory of someone born in 1976? Couldn't they count as pure Gen X?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/16/16 at 6:38 pm


I would also like to be an early Yer. Hopefully things will improve someday.


I wish I was born in 2026 so that I'd never remember this time period.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/16/16 at 7:07 pm


If you're born in December then you can punt yourself to the next year you poser.


Nah, it doesn't really matter, what ever year the person was born in then let them be it. You can really say that everyone born from July through December aren't really their age they're going to turn for most of the year. Only those born from January to June are their age they're going to turn for most of the year. So just go by simple years so things don't get too complicated.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/16/16 at 7:12 pm


I wish I was born in 2026 so that I'd never remember this time period.


Oh no, glad I'm not going to be. That's 30 years from when I was born! I'd miss out on too much great pop culture that the 2000's and 2010's have offered. It's already bad enough I missed out on the culture of the 80's and 90's.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/16/16 at 7:25 pm


Oh no, glad I'm not going to be. That's 30 years from when I was born! I'd miss out on too much great pop culture that the 2000's and 2010's have offered. It's already bad enough I missed out on the culture of the 80's and 90's.


I don't see what I'd be missing out if I couldn't remember this year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/16/16 at 7:53 pm


1979 - X/Y cusp leaning X (first election: 1998 midterms)
1980 - X/Y cusp leaning X
1981 - X/Y cusp leaning Y (2000 presidential)
1982 - X/Y cusp leaning Y
1983 - Early Y (2002 midterms)
1984 - Early Y
1985 - Pure Y (2004 presidential)
1986 - Pure Y
1987 - Pure Y (2006 midterms)
1988 - Pure Y
1989 - Pure Y (2008 presidential)
1990 - Pure Y
1991 - Pure Y (2010 midterms)
1992 - Pure Y
1993 - Late Y (2012 presidential)
1994 - Late Y
1995 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y (2014 midterms)
1996 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y
1997 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z (2016 presidential)
1998 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z
1999 - Early Z (2018 midterms)
2000 - Early Z
2001 - Pure Z (2020 presidential)
2002 - Pure Z

Shower thoughts. You can extend this backwards too :o

If you're born in December then you can punt yourself to the next year you poser.


What does midterms mean?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/16/16 at 8:13 pm


I don't see what I'd be missing out if I couldn't remember this year.


Yeah, but 2016 isn't my only year of life. How about the fun I experienced during my teen years from 2010-2014, or my childhood from 2001-2007? All the friends I made and the family I've lived with. I would have missed out on all of that if I was born 10 years from now. I'm happy to be alive and the age I am now. I wouldn't want to be born in any other time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/16/16 at 8:34 pm


What does midterms mean?
it's the congress elections.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/16/16 at 8:37 pm


Yeah, but 2016 isn't my only year of life. How about the fun I experienced during my teen years from 2010-2014, or my childhood from 2001-2007? All the friends I made and the family I've lived with. I would have missed out on all of that if I was born 10 years from now. I'm happy to be alive and the age I am now. I wouldn't want to be born in any other time.


To be honest, only family and other people close to me would stop me from being born in a completely different generation. It's like I was born in the wrong time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/16/16 at 8:44 pm


it's the congress elections.


Ah, thanks for explaining that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/16/16 at 9:05 pm


1979 - X/Y cusp leaning X (first election: 1998 midterms)
1980 - X/Y cusp leaning X
1981 - X/Y cusp leaning Y (2000 presidential)
1982 - X/Y cusp leaning Y
1983 - Early Y (2002 midterms)
1984 - Early Y
1985 - Pure Y (2004 presidential)
1986 - Pure Y
1987 - Pure Y (2006 midterms)
1988 - Pure Y
1989 - Pure Y (2008 presidential)
1990 - Pure Y
1991 - Pure Y (2010 midterms)
1992 - Pure Y
1993 - Late Y (2012 presidential)
1994 - Late Y
1995 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y (2014 midterms)
1996 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y
1997 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z (2016 presidential)
1998 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z
1999 - Early Z (2018 midterms)
2000 - Early Z
2001 - Pure Z (2020 presidential)
2002 - Pure Z

1985 should be early Y imo.... and 1986 born: early/pure. Oh and 1991ers: core/late
I don't believe in cusp crap! >:( ;D ;)     

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 07/16/16 at 9:19 pm

If a person born in 2016 looks back at the 2010's 20 years from now, he/she will think of the things as retro/vintage and the events as the old times.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/16/16 at 9:20 pm


1999 - Early Z (2018 midterms)
2000 - Early Z
2001 - Pure Z (2020 presidential)
2002 - Pure Z


Your generation placing here is bizarre. I still think 2001 is where Early Z truly starts...
1999 and 2000 are the final millennial babies imo.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/16/16 at 9:47 pm


If a person born in 2016 looks back at the 2010's 20 years from now, he/she will think of the things as retro/vintage and the events as the old times.


I personally don't wanna be old enough to remember these times. Millennial is the worst time to be born ever

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 07/16/16 at 10:14 pm


What does midterms mean?

it's the congress elections.

Ah, thanks for explaining that.

Yeah, some states even have their governor elections in those years, too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/17/16 at 9:23 am


Your generation placing here is bizarre. I still think 2001 is where Early Z truly starts...
1999 and 2000 are the final millennial babies imo.


I'll rather be called as a Y/Z cusp than a millennial. I know that we don't like using cusps, but my childhood is rather half Y and half Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/17/16 at 9:39 am


Yeah, some states even have their governor elections in those years, too.


Oh wow I gotta look into that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 07/17/16 at 3:29 pm


I wish I was born in 2026 so that I'd never remember this time period.


How does that even make sense?  ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/17/16 at 6:53 pm


1985 should be early Y imo.... and 1986 born: early/pure. Oh and 1991ers: core/late
I don't believe in cusp crap! >:( ;D ;)   



Your generation placing here is bizarre. I still think 2001 is where Early Z truly starts...
1999 and 2000 are the final millennial babies imo.


That's exactly why there are two waves within each generation. Each wave about 10 years which makes the whole generation about 20. By using that formula, not only is it easier, but it also deletes the cusps from all cohorts. Gen Y definitely started around or after the late 70s and there's no such thing as early/core/late. It gets too confusing and makes some people be in between cusps. It's much better have older and younger groups for each generation.

As for when the generation Z begins, it truly should be no later than 1997/98. I actually used to think it began with 2001, but now I'm realizing it started earlier than I previously thought. There's truly no way those who graduated high school this year or last year can possibly still be considered Millennials. Reasons for that is they will generally graduate college in 2019 and after; while the C/O 2015 & 2016 are eligible to vote, the rest aren't; the majority has Gen X parents and are most likely the oldest in their families; and their education has been compiled of mainly Gen X teachers and principals.


I'll rather be called as a Y/Z cusp than a millennial. I know that we don't like using cusps, but my childhood is rather half Y and half Z.
Well considering there's no cusps presented in any article, you are pretty much one of the oldest in Gen Z; however, I don't mind if you see yourself as in between.


I personally don't wanna be old enough to remember these times. Millennial is the worst time to be born ever
You don't have to if you don't want to. No one is forced to remember the bad times.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/17/16 at 8:13 pm


As for when the generation Z begins, it truly should be no later than 1997/98. I actually used to think it began with 2001, but now I'm realizing it started earlier than I previously thought. There's truly no way those who graduated high school this year or last year can possibly still be considered Millennials. Reasons for that is they will generally graduate college in 2019 and after; while the C/O 2015 & 2016 are eligible to vote, the rest aren't; the majority has Gen X parents and are most likely the oldest in their families; and their education has been compiled of mainly Gen X teachers and principals.

So you consider mid 90s babies like myself to be the last of the millennials? and consider late 90s born to be the beginning of gen z? ??? :o
To each his own then....

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/17/16 at 8:16 pm


I'll rather be called as a Y/Z cusp than a millennial. I know that we don't like using cusps, but my childhood is rather half Y and half Z.

Due to my time talking to you; I'd honestly call you Y/Z, heading towards Z.
I REFUSE to say cusp. >:( ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/17/16 at 9:16 pm


Due to my time talking to you; I'd honestly call you Y/Z, heading towards Z.
I REFUSE to say cusp. >:( ;D


I agree. Saying something like cusp doesn't really make a lot of sense when you're talking about generations. It's rather best to call someone with Y/Z traits as a hybrid or something like that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/17/16 at 9:21 pm


So you consider mid 90s babies like myself to be the last of the millennials? and consider late 90s born to be the beginning of gen z? ??? :o
To each his own then....
Yeah. if you think about it, you guys are going to vote for the first time in a election and it doesn't include Obama considering most Millennials voted for him in 2008 and 2012. You guys are most likely to be the youngest siblings of your families. Your education was mainly comprised of Boomer faculty. Your traits seem to more like this:

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/55e8b6ea9dd7cc1f008b8151-1200-1211/millennial-traits.png

and you guys witnessed Y2K, 9/11, the Great Recession, Neo Civil Rights, and the rise of ISIS.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/17/16 at 10:37 pm


Yeah. if you think about it, you guys are going to vote for the first time in a election and it doesn't include Obama considering most Millennials voted for him in 2008 and 2012. You guys are most likely to be the youngest siblings of your families. Your education was mainly comprised of Boomer faculty. Your traits seem to more like this:

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/55e8b6ea9dd7cc1f008b8151-1200-1211/millennial-traits.png

and you guys witnessed Y2K, 9/11, the Great Recession, Neo Civil Rights, and the rise of ISIS.


Looking at your recent posts. You're starting to think about generations like how I did long time ago!  ;)

But anyways, I'm not surprised by this. I wouldn't mind the 1995-1998 cohort being millennials/Y at the latest, but like I said before, 1995-2000 as a whole cohort could really be called the transition from Y to Z, it's not 100% clear whether people born around 1995-2000 are part of Y or Z, but it's 100% clear that 1994 born's are Y and it's 100% clear that 2001 born's are Z, however, by the time you get to 1999 & 2000 born's, it's honestly so many traits that make them to late to be part of the Y generation anyway.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/17/16 at 10:41 pm


Reasons for that is they will generally graduate college in 2019 and after


Most people with regular careers who graduated with me will probably graduate in 2018, but some people like me with engineering degrees won't be graduating until 2019 or even 2020 because of how much longer or more rigorous our majors are. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/17/16 at 11:05 pm


Well, 1999 and 2000 are both Early Z babies, so I don't mind that. Although, I think it should count for October and November babies, since they don't get older until the very end of the year.

What about October?

Nah, it doesn't really matter, what ever year the person was born in then let them be it. You can really say that everyone born from July through December aren't really their age they're going to turn for most of the year. Only those born from January to June are their age they're going to turn for most of the year. So just go by simple years so things don't get too complicated.


What if someone born December 1978 has an extremely good memory as in comparable to the memory of someone born in 1976? Couldn't they count as pure Gen X?


The elections are usually in mid-November. December people are too young.


Your generation placing here is bizarre. I still think 2001 is where Early Z truly starts...
1999 and 2000 are the final millennial babies imo.


Hey, that's cool too. I'm still of the old-guard opinion that if you don't remember the 90s/Y2K era then you're not Gen Y ;D 2000s kids are Gen Z. 1985 borns graduated university in 2007 and afterwards, so they would actually be one of the most stereotypical millennial birth years. 1985-1988 graduated into the recession.


I agree. Saying something like cusp doesn't really make a lot of sense when you're talking about generations. It's rather best to call someone with Y/Z traits as a hybrid or something like that.


It's the same thing.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/17/16 at 11:42 pm


The elections are usually in mid-November. December people are too young.

Hey, that's cool too. I'm still of the old-guard opinion that if you don't remember the 90s/Y2K era then you're not Gen Y ;D 2000s kids are Gen Z. 1985 borns graduated university in 2007 and afterwards, so they would actually be one of the most stereotypical millennial birth years. 1985-1988 graduated into the recession.


To me, it doesn't matter when the full recession occurred. The stock market crash didn't happen until September 2008, which caused the after effects to continue throughout 2009 & 2010, and most 1985 & 1986 born's with average careers would have been graduated from college before the crash happened. Late 80's babies feel like the peak of the millennial/Y generation IMO.

There was a 1985 born arguing online a week ago or two that he should be considered as X and he thought Gen X lasted from 1965-1985!  :o ::)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/17/16 at 11:46 pm


To me, it doesn't matter when the full recession occurred. The stock market crash didn't happen until September 2008, which caused the after effects to continue throughout 2009 & 2010, and most 1985 & 1986 born's with average careers would have been graduated from college before the crash happened. Late 80's babies feel like the peak of the millennial/Y generation IMO.

There was a 1985 born arguing online a week ago or two that he should be considered as X and he thought Gen X lasted from 1965-1985!  :o ::)


If you've only been in the job market for a few years or less, you are usually first on the chopping block, and some don't get jobs right out of school, which is what I mean when I say they graduated into the recession.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/18/16 at 12:39 am


Looking at your recent posts. You're starting to think about generations like how I did long time ago!  ;)

But anyways, I'm not surprised by this. I wouldn't mind the 1995-1998 cohort being millennials/Y at the latest, but like I said before, 1995-2000 as a whole cohort could really be called the transition from Y to Z, it's not 100% clear whether people born around 1995-2000 are part of Y or Z, but it's 100% clear that 1994 born's are Y and it's 100% clear that 2001 born's are Z, however, by the time you get to 1999 & 2000 born's, it's honestly so many traits that make them to late to be part of the Y generation anyway.
Yeah same here. I totally see you guys as the youngest of the Millennials. As for the transition, it makes sense considering that there are some similar traits you guys share in common and that are certain events you can't recall. Here's an image that shows which attributes you guys have equally.

http://www.ey.com/Media/vwLUExtFile/EY-rise-of-gen-znew-challenge-for-retailers/$FILE/img-01.jpg


Most people with regular careers who graduated with me will probably graduate in 2018, but some people like me with engineering degrees won't be graduating until 2019 or even 2020 because of how much longer or more rigorous our majors are. 
Yeah, that's true since most graduate with a Bachelor's from a university within 4 years; however, you're right that some majors take more than 4 though. I have a friend who wants to be a nurse and she has been in the program for 3 years. Right now, she has 5 left to go, and she currently has her medical associate's. I remember her telling me I think her goal was to earn a doctorate degree which takes 8 years to complete.


There was a 1985 born arguing online a week ago or two that he should be considered as X and he thought Gen X lasted from 1965-1985!  :o ::)
I know. ;D ;D ;D ;D There's no way they can be Xers. If we factor in events, traits, education, other misc. etc., then we receive a different outcome and their experiences in no way overlap with a Gen X viewpoint at all.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/18/16 at 12:50 am


To me, it doesn't matter when the full recession occurred. The stock market crash didn't happen until September 2008, which caused the after effects to continue throughout 2009 & 2010, and most 1985 & 1986 born's with average careers would have been graduated from college before the crash happened. Late 80's babies feel like the peak of the millennial/Y generation IMO.

There was a 1985 born arguing online a week ago or two that he should be considered as X and he thought Gen X lasted from 1965-1985!  :o ::)

I agree man! I disagree with slowpoke. Late 80s born are the peak of the generation; plain and simple.
Mid 80s born are still early Y, but heading towards peak. If you became teens during the end of the 90s,'' came of age'' before bush's re-election,were able to vote for Bush, out of college before the crash happened, you are not the heart and soul member of that generation imo.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: yelimsexa on 07/18/16 at 7:20 am

Interesting about these "Gen X" teachers since I'm an older Millenial and my first and second grade teachers were all Xers (born in the late 1960s). That could mean presumably that some of the recent high school graduates would therefore have some early Millenials as teachers, something that obviously wasn't possible with me. IMO 1985 is the last real "early Y" year since I graduated college and started employment just before the the recession, and I associate much of early Y nowadays with having families and raising children (likely leading off the new "Generation Alpha" or whatever it's called). Other significant traits of early Y:

-Never had the Internet as children the way younger members of the generation had
-Didn't have social media as teens (think Myspace/Friendster)
-Used computers with the large floppy discs (not the smaller ones)
-The core audience of the classic generation of TMNT, by the time Pokemon came out, they were teenagers and seen as periphery demographic (you would be caught dead as a high schooler if you had anything to do with that unlike jr. high/middle school)
-Understands the '90s from the beginning to the end, but couldn't understand the danger of what the Cold War was all about
-Clearly remembers the 8-bit era (3rd generation of gaming) before the 16-bit (4th generation)
-American Pie is the defining teenage flick, although it wouldn't be surprising to someone who saw Clueless when it came out (I was 10 and some were already seeing PG-13 movies at the time)
-The Disney Channel was a pay channel until they were teens, experienced the Platinum/Golden Age of Nickelodeon first hand, by the time Cartoon Network came out with original programming, they were periphery demo (except for Toonami/Adult Swim)
-The primary audience of the late '90s teen pop movement (though my younger sister born in 1991 was really into the Spice Girls)
-Has a tendency to see the rise of electropop/dubstep at the end of the '00s as when they grew tired of pop music, compared to the mid-10s scene for the core to even some later Millenials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/18/16 at 8:43 am

What people forget is that you can be affected by the same events differently. The 2008 crash could cause you to be more cautious but it could also cause you to be more risk taking because you believe stability is a myth that doesn't exist.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/18/16 at 8:47 am


What people forget is that you can be affected by the same events differently. The 2008 crash could cause you to be more cautious but it could also cause you to be more risk taking because you believe stability is a myth that doesn't exist.


I think it depends on people's political/economical opinions.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/18/16 at 8:50 am


I think it depends on people's political/economical opinions.


Yes and how they were personally affected by the crash. One thing I don't get about other Millennials is their obsession with normality. Like they want everyone to be the same and say "there are no special snowflakes." They also look for every little difference and magnify it by a million times.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/18/16 at 8:57 am


Yes and how they were personally affected by the crash. One thing I don't get about other Millennials is their obsession with normality. Like they want everyone to be the same and say "there are no special snowflakes." They also look for every little difference and magnify it by a million times.


I thought millennials always thought they like being special snowflakes. Maybe that's what you mean about them wanting to be normal and crap.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/18/16 at 9:00 am


I thought millennials always thought they like being special snowflakes. Maybe that's what you mean about them wanting to be normal and crap.


No, that's what the older generations think because they believe every little thing they see in the media. The few Millennials who are obsessed is because we live in an ultra conformist generation so the ones who are different see themselves as special. Most Millennials are obsessed with being chill and normal and not being too different in the way they dress or talk or act or even believe. They sense difference like a laser beam. Why is this?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/18/16 at 9:17 am


http://www.ey.com/Media/vwLUExtFile/EY-rise-of-gen-znew-challenge-for-retailers/$FILE/img-01.jpg


The breaking realization that the jerky 18 year old that you find annoying is probably going have it a bit easier in life than you.  :(

But anyways what's shown in that pic pretty much sums up what I tend to see in a lot of articles that describe Millennials and Plurals.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/18/16 at 9:37 am


The breaking realization that the jerky 18 year old that you find annoying is probably going have it a bit easier in life than you.  :(

But anyways what's shown in that pic pretty much sums up what I tend to see in a lot of articles that describe Millennials and Plurals.


Based on those 2 charts I'm like a mix of Millennials and Z on traits alone. Most people over 35 are completely clueless on generational traits for the younger people. They just listen to the media and the news instead of using their eyes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/18/16 at 9:47 am


Based on those 2 charts I'm like a mix of Millennials and Z on traits alone. Most people over 35 are completely clueless on generational traits for the younger people. They just listen to the media and the news instead of using their eyes.


For me I was basically your average Millennial in terms of attitude as a kid-teen. As an adult I somehow ended up feeling more like a Plural as I've come to accept that to find a bit of success in this day and age you must think like the young people of this day and age. With all the crazy things happening these days I think that it's pretty much a requirement to be like a Plural in order to survive and progress.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/18/16 at 10:06 am


No, that's what the older generations think because they believe every little thing they see in the media. The few Millennials who are obsessed is because we live in an ultra conformist generation so the ones who are different see themselves as special. Most Millennials are obsessed with being chill and normal and not being too different in the way they dress or talk or act or even believe. They sense difference like a laser beam. Why is this?


Look, I don't talk to a lot of millennials. So, it's not like I would care if they say sh*t about me that they don't like. Especially when I'm not into a lot of this decade's pop culture, so I wouldn't care.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/18/16 at 10:09 am


For me I was basically your average Millennial in terms of attitude as a kid-teen. As an adult I somehow ended up feeling more like a Plural as I've come to accept that to find a bit of success in this day and age you must think like the young people of this day and age. With all the crazy things happening these days I think that it's pretty much a requirement to be like a Plural in order to survive and progress.


Well it seems like Millennials now are becoming the opposite of the list. Like they think you're a "special snowflake" if you want your own identity and don't want to be forced to conform. They think you're entitled if you want to be treated with basic decency. They believe in independence to the point they can't work together as a team to accomplish something unless it's to tear someone or something down. And they seem to hate idealistic and lofty goals for some reason. They think everything has to suck and you can't change it. They also call you self centered for not wanting the group to take away your rights or preferences.

I'm realistic about obstacles and about how society is but idealistic in how I want to change it. I also have the persistent and innovative traits of Gen Z and self aware. I believe in independence if it's more efficient but also believe in teamwork if it's more efficient. To me, efficiency goes ahead of both values.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/18/16 at 10:18 am


Well it seems like Millennials now are becoming the opposite of the list. Like they think you're a "special snowflake" if you want your own identity and don't want to be forced to conform. They think you're entitled if you want to be treated with basic decency. They believe in independence to the point they can't work together as a team to accomplish something unless it's to tear someone or something down. And they seem to hate idealistic and lofty goals for some reason. They think everything has to suck and you can't change it. They also call you self centered for not wanting the group to take away your rights or preferences.

I'm realistic about obstacles and about how society is but idealistic in how I want to change it. I also have the persistent and innovative traits of Gen Z and self aware. I believe in independence if it's more efficient but also believe in teamwork if it's more efficient. To me, efficiency goes ahead of both values.


With that description of millennials it makes me wish they just get up and get off this planet with that logic. History has showed me that even if things suck you must still progress and continue to work for a better outcome (90% of famous historical figures did this). With the way you described the millennials it's like they'd just quit even trying to make things better and just accept life as it is. Makes me happy that the inspiring and innovative men within history aren't millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/18/16 at 10:26 am


With that description of millennials it makes me wish they just get up and get off this planet with that logic. History has showed me that even if things suck you must still progress and continue to work for a better outcome (90% of famous historical figures did this). With the way you described the millennials it's like they'd just quit even trying to make things better and just accept life as it is. Makes me happy that the inspiring and innovative men within history aren't millennials.


I guess it's because millennials don't really want to be inspirational. So, it wouldn't be that bad when they're like 40 or 50 years old. Or unless one of them gets elected as POTUS, but I doubt it would happen in a while.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/18/16 at 11:31 am


Interesting about these "Gen X" teachers since I'm an older Millenial and my first and second grade teachers were all Xers (born in the late 1960s). That could mean presumably that some of the recent high school graduates would therefore have some early Millenials as teachers, something that obviously wasn't possible with me. IMO 1985 is the last real "early Y" year since I graduated college and started employment just before the the recession, and I associate much of early Y nowadays with having families and raising children (likely leading off the new "Generation Alpha" or whatever it's called). Other significant traits of early Y:

-Never had the Internet as children the way younger members of the generation had
-Didn't have social media as teens (think Myspace/Friendster)
-Used computers with the large floppy discs (not the smaller ones)
-The core audience of the classic generation of TMNT, by the time Pokemon came out, they were teenagers and seen as periphery demographic (you would be caught dead as a high schooler if you had anything to do with that unlike jr. high/middle school)
-Understands the '90s from the beginning to the end, but couldn't understand the danger of what the Cold War was all about
-Clearly remembers the 8-bit era (3rd generation of gaming) before the 16-bit (4th generation)
-American Pie is the defining teenage flick, although it wouldn't be surprising to someone who saw Clueless when it came out (I was 10 and some were already seeing PG-13 movies at the time)
-The Disney Channel was a pay channel until they were teens, experienced the Platinum/Golden Age of Nickelodeon first hand, by the time Cartoon Network came out with original programming, they were periphery demo (except for Toonami/Adult Swim)
-The primary audience of the late '90s teen pop movement (though my younger sister born in 1991 was really into the Spice Girls)
-Has a tendency to see the rise of electropop/dubstep at the end of the '00s as when they grew tired of pop music, compared to the mid-10s scene for the core to even some later Millenials.
Actually, they were. Back when I was a senior in HS, one of my teachers was a Millennial; however, he taught a freshman math class I was placed in. He had already finished his degree a few years earlier at that time, and he was one of the oldest in our generation.

As for Gen X teachers, I had plenty of them myself; however, I also had boomer ones as well throughout school, so it was more of a mixture for me.

Regarding your list, I agree with it, but I say it better to split this generation into two waves. The whole early/core/late formula is getting too confusing lately considering it's split into thirds and they don't come out evenly.


The breaking realization that the jerky 18 year old that you find annoying is probably going have it a bit easier in life than you.  :(

But anyways what's shown in that pic pretty much sums up what I tend to see in a lot of articles that describe Millennials and Plurals.
Same here although there are more traits talked about regarding both generations that just those in the photo. For instance, Millennials value teamwork while Plurals value acceptance for everyone.


No, that's what the older generations think because they believe every little thing they see in the media. The few Millennials who are obsessed is because we live in an ultra conformist generation so the ones who are different see themselves as special. Most Millennials are obsessed with being chill and normal and not being too different in the way they dress or talk or act or even believe. They sense difference like a laser beam. Why is this?
They did the same thing with Xers being slackers and Boomers being hippies; however not, only were those generalizations untrue, but those who were associated with those communities were truly more in the minority than the majority. For some reason, the media seems to focus more on the negative than the positive. Good always outweighs evil no matter what.


Well it seems like Millennials now are becoming the opposite of the list. Like they think you're a "special snowflake" if you want your own identity and don't want to be forced to conform. They think you're entitled if you want to be treated with basic decency. They believe in independence to the point they can't work together as a team to accomplish something unless it's to tear someone or something down. And they seem to hate idealistic and lofty goals for some reason. They think everything has to suck and you can't change it. They also call you self centered for not wanting the group to take away your rights or preferences.

I'm realistic about obstacles and about how society is but idealistic in how I want to change it. I also have the persistent and innovative traits of Gen Z and self aware. I believe in independence if it's more efficient but also believe in teamwork if it's more efficient. To me, efficiency goes ahead of both values.
These sounds like something A SJW would probably say. I can't understand what's wrong with people being normal or even working together? Those are really some good attributes to have.


With that description of millennials it makes me wish they just get up and get off this planet with that logic. History has showed me that even if things suck you must still progress and continue to work for a better outcome (90% of famous historical figures did this). With the way you described the millennials it's like they'd just quit even trying to make things better and just accept life as it is. Makes me happy that the inspiring and innovative men within history aren't millennials.



I guess it's because millennials don't really want to be inspirational. So, it wouldn't be that bad when they're like 40 or 50 years old. Or unless one of them gets elected as POTUS, but I doubt it would happen in a while.
I think those Millennials with that logic are pretty much in the minority. There are many who want to be innovative and change the world for the better. There's already plenty of folks who are advocating for more civil rights right now and some are even leaders themselves. In most likely 12 years from now, our generation is going to be running for the white house and using that terrible logic is not going to help us win.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/18/16 at 2:15 pm


Actually, they were. Back when I was a senior in HS, one of my teachers was a Millennial; however, he taught a freshman math class I was placed in. He had already finished his degree a few years earlier at that time, and he was one of the oldest in our generation.

As for Gen X teachers, I had plenty of them myself; however, I also had boomer ones as well throughout school, so it was more of a mixture for me.


My English teacher in my last year of high school was only 24ish, and we were 17/18. It was awesome :D I was closer to her than most my teachers. You could tell she was "new-school", she had tattoos and would talk about the dumb sh*t she read on Twitter or what happened last night on Breaking Bad etc.. She was hilarious ;D

I think my 11th grade math teacher was born early or mid 80s, he looked late 20s in 2009. He said he had a cellphone in high school so he could tell if we were trying to sneak in ours too. He wasn't married either, we'd see him at the mall and theatres with his girlfriend all the time. He was super chill.

I think that's it, most my teachers were Gen X/Boomers, I probably had more Silent Gen teachers than millennials. Millennial teachers were the greatest tho tbh.


Well it seems like Millennials now are becoming the opposite of the list. Like they think you're a "special snowflake" if you want your own identity and don't want to be forced to conform. They think you're entitled if you want to be treated with basic decency. They believe in independence to the point they can't work together as a team to accomplish something unless it's to tear someone or something down. And they seem to hate idealistic and lofty goals for some reason. They think everything has to suck and you can't change it. They also call you self centered for not wanting the group to take away your rights or preferences.

I'm realistic about obstacles and about how society is but idealistic in how I want to change it. I also have the persistent and innovative traits of Gen Z and self aware. I believe in independence if it's more efficient but also believe in teamwork if it's more efficient. To me, efficiency goes ahead of both values.


Do you have any specific examples? It sounds like your generalizing a bit.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/18/16 at 2:43 pm


My English teacher in my last year of high school was only 24ish, and we were 17/18. It was awesome :D I was closer to her than most my teachers. You could tell she was "new-school", she had tattoos and would talk about the dumb sh*t she read on Twitter or what happened last night on Breaking Bad etc.. She was hilarious ;D

I think my 11th grade math teacher was born early or mid 80s, he looked late 20s in 2009. He said he had a cellphone in high school so he could tell if we were trying to sneak in ours too. He wasn't married either, we'd see him at the mall and theatres with his girlfriend all the time. He was super chill.

I think that's it, most my teachers were Gen X/Boomers, I probably had more Silent Gen teachers than millennials. Millennial teachers were the greatest tho tbh.
I can see it was. Oh and I made an error. I forgot I had another teacher part of our generation as well. The first one I met began working at my HS as soon as I started there as a freshman and she was also a math teacher. She was about 26 at the time and the other one I met during my senior year was 26. Right now, both are currently 34 and 32 respectively.

But yeah, they were definitely new school as far as being from old school. One of them wasn't even married or in a relationship when I met her and the other one I think was just in a relationship at the time. The whole I had them I had no problems at all. Furthermore, one of them even has a Facebook and I'm friends with her, so it's great that I had that experience. :)

Other than that, most of my teachers were Boomers and Xers and I might have had a few Silent Generation teachers during my education as well, but I'm not entirely sure.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 07/18/16 at 7:12 pm


Yeah same here. I totally see you guys as the youngest of the Millennials. As for the transition, it makes sense considering that there are some similar traits you guys share in common and that are certain events you can't recall. Here's an image that shows which attributes you guys have equally.

http://www.ey.com/Media/vwLUExtFile/EY-rise-of-gen-znew-challenge-for-retailers/$FILE/img-01.jpg

No offense, but it feels like these generational personality definitions are just picking from the same old grab-bag. :P

From the articles I've looked at, it seems EVERY generation has been described as hardworking, diligent, creative, etc. in addition to lazy, entitled, narcissistic, etc. Every single one! There's rarely any variation, it's just those same old same old.

Also, why does the Gen Z boy have a stupid looking mohawk and his hand in his pocket? Do teens like putting their hands in their pockets more than adults? ;D Whoever made this infographic is silly.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/18/16 at 8:04 pm


No offense, but it feels like these generational personality definitions are just picking from the same old grab-bag. :P

From the articles I've looked at, it seems EVERY generation has been described as hardworking, diligent, creative, etc. in addition to lazy, entitled, narcissistic, etc. Every single one! There's rarely any variation, it's just those same old same old.

Also, why does the Gen Z boy have a stupid looking mohawk and his hand in his pocket? Do teens like putting their hands in their pockets more than adults? ;D Whoever made this infographic is silly.


So overall how would you change the chart?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/18/16 at 9:51 pm


No offense, but it feels like these generational personality definitions are just picking from the same old grab-bag. :P

From the articles I've looked at, it seems EVERY generation has been described as hardworking, diligent, creative, etc. in addition to lazy, entitled, narcissistic, etc. Every single one! There's rarely any variation, it's just those same old same old.

Also, why does the Gen Z boy have a stupid looking mohawk and his hand in his pocket? Do teens like putting their hands in their pockets more than adults? ;D Whoever made this infographic is silly.
Oh yeah, I agree. I've seen too many of those personalities in the articles, but then again each generation has hardworking people and lazy ones as well. However though, there are certain attributes that have distinguished one generation from another.

As for why he looks like that, I'm not sure. I just used the infographic as an example to show what traits both cohorts have.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/18/16 at 11:09 pm


Oh yeah, I agree. I've seen too many of those personalities in the articles, but then again each generation has hardworking people and lazy ones as well. However though, there are certain attributes that have distinguished one generation from another.

As for why he looks like that, I'm not sure. I just used the infographic as an example to show what traits both cohorts have.


It's not the hardworking or lazy part that bothers me but the conformist part that does.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/18/16 at 11:14 pm


No offense, but it feels like these generational personality definitions are just picking from the same old grab-bag. :P

From the articles I've looked at, it seems EVERY generation has been described as hardworking, diligent, creative, etc. in addition to lazy, entitled, narcissistic, etc. Every single one! There's rarely any variation, it's just those same old same old.

Also, why does the Gen Z boy have a stupid looking mohawk and his hand in his pocket? Do teens like putting their hands in their pockets more than adults? ;D Whoever made this infographic is silly.


The truth in this post. http://i.imgur.com/tDs4JLY.png


I can see it was. Oh and I made an error. I forgot I had another teacher part of our generation as well. The first one I met began working at my HS as soon as I started there as a freshman and she was also a math teacher. She was about 26 at the time and the other one I met during my senior year was 26. Right now, both are currently 34 and 32 respectively.

But yeah, they were definitely new school as far as being from old school. One of them wasn't even married or in a relationship when I met her and the other one I think was just in a relationship at the time. The whole I had them I had no problems at all. Furthermore, one of them even has a Facebook and I'm friends with her, so it's great that I had that experience. :)

Other than that, most of my teachers were Boomers and Xers and I might have had a few Silent Generation teachers during my education as well, but I'm not entirely sure.


Oh I tried to be Facebook friends with my English teacher, but she told me that was illegal, even after I graduated :o

My prom in 2010 doubled as my Chemistry teacher's retirement party. If he was 65 then, he would have been born 1945 right? That's Silent gen. I think my teachers in Grade 1 and Grade 3 were pushing 60+ in 1998 and 2000, that would make them Silent gen too. I probably had a few other 60+ y/o teachers. In the 2000s, that would mean they were born in the 1940s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/19/16 at 12:26 am

I dunno Markese... I'm uneasy with 1982-1996 being millennials, it's just too short....

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/19/16 at 12:43 am


http://www.ey.com/Media/vwLUExtFile/EY-rise-of-gen-znew-challenge-for-retailers/$FILE/img-01.jpg


I'm going to take a wild guess that whoever made that graphic was born after 1996. ::)


My prom in 2010 doubled as my Chemistry teacher's retirement party. If he was 65 then, he would have been born 1945 right? That's Silent gen. I think my teachers in Grade 1 and Grade 3 were pushing 60+ in 1998 and 2000, that would make them Silent gen too. I probably had a few other 60+ y/o teachers. In the 2000s, that would mean they were born in the 1940s.


About half of my teachers in elementary school were either Boomers or Silents, while the other half were older Xers. By the time I was in high school I would say it was a slight majority of Xers.

The oldest teacher I ever had was a lady that taught music class when I was kindergarten and 1st grade. She was born in 1916, putting her firmly in the G.I. Generation. She retired when I was in 3rd grade at the ripe old age of 79! :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/19/16 at 12:51 am


I dunno Markese... I'm uneasy with 1982-1996 being millennials, it's just too short....
Well it's actually not that short as you think. Late 70s is also Millennial. Remember that they were in college throughout the Y2K era and they were into movies such as American Pie, Can't Hardly Wait, Cruel Intentions, Road Trip etc. If you want to know. I've seen some comments from those born around that period and they say don't identify as true Xers. There are others reasons not talked about as much why they're Millennials. One thing is that by the late 70s, the birth rate was increasing again after sometime of low births for 10 years. A majority of them had Boomer teachers and faculty. They're mainly the oldest of their siblings. Most actually have Boomer parents as the latter decided to wait to have children.  Although many were able to vote for Clinton, all of them were in college at the time. Considering that pop culture had fully transitioned to Y by 1998,  they were still part of the target audience making them part of the Pop-Punk, R&B, Nu-Metal and Hip-Hop scene. Last, Gen X is the cohort that's short, so Millennials would be about 20 years.

I'm not sure if you're aware or anything, but there's a site that I go on often and there's a forum with Generations all over it. Within it,  there is a Gen Z subforum and there are many people who are slightly younger than you. Looking at the comments they made, they actually seem to more comfortable with being a Plural than a Millennial. I'm sorry Eric, but there's absolutely no way those 2001 borns are the oldest of the Plurals. It has to start earlier. Besides, a majority of them won't even be eligible to vote until sometime in 2028 and most are currently still in school.


I'm going to take a wild guess that whoever made that graphic was born after 1996. ::)
Probably so, but I was just using that photo as an example of personalities between Millennials and Plurals.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/19/16 at 1:13 am


I dunno Markese... I'm uneasy with 1982-1996 being millennials, it's just too short....


I think Millennials start in 1983.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/19/16 at 1:43 am

OK for me Millennials = 1983-2001
people born in 1981 and 1982 are the fence sitters.

Here is how I would split the Generation:
Early:

1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988

1983-1985 would group together
1987 and 1988 would group together
1986 would share traits of both


Mid:

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994

Late:

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/19/16 at 1:52 am


I think Millennials start in 1983.



OK for me Millennials = 1983-2001
people born in 1981 and 1982 are the fence sitters.

Here is how I would split the Generation:
Early:

1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988

1983-1985 would group together
1987 and 1988 would group together
1986 would share traits of both


Mid:

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994

Late:

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001


Your chart looks good, but to me it looks better with two waves instead of three. That's because, It's less confusing and it gives you an even amount of years within each wave. Now, I honestly can't see 1983 being the oldest for many purposes shown in my previous post. In the end, I can see it being from 1977/78 to 1997/98. There are variety of reasons even presented in articles on why it doesn't begin in 2000/01 as previously thought.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/19/16 at 1:59 am


Well it's actually not that short as you think. Late 70s is also Millennial. Remember that they were in college throughout the Y2K era and they were into movies such as American Pie, Can't Hardly Wait, Cruel Intentions, Road Trip etc. If you want to know. I've seen some comments from those born around that period and they say don't identify as true Xers. There are others reasons not talked about as much why they're Millennials. One thing is that by the late 70s, the birth rate was increasing again after sometime of low births for 10 years. A majority of them had Boomer teachers and faculty. They're mainly the oldest of their siblings. Most actually have Boomer parents as the latter decided to wait to have children.  Although many were able to vote for Clinton, all of them were in college at the time. Considering that pop culture had fully transitioned to Y by 1998,  they were still part of the target audience making them part of the Pop-Punk, R&B, Nu-Metal and Hip-Hop scene. Last, Gen X is the cohort that's short, so Millennials would be about 20 years.


Good post. Anyways, people need to realize that the idea of 1981-2000 born's being the millennial/Y generation has been outdated for a long time now. However, I disagree with late 70's born's being millennials. 1977-1979 are the tail end of X, they were graduated from high school before the Y2K era began. Hell, even 1980 is the tail end of X too. You could really go by many definitions for millennials/Y. It's actually a 15-16 year period, not a 20 year period. 1980-1995, 1981-1996, or 1982-1997. Like I said before, with technology becoming more and more advanced over the years, generations can't really go too long.

Edit: In other words, MOST sources and articles say that millennials/Y range from early 80's born's to mid 90's born's.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 07/19/16 at 2:00 am

I think Millennials start around 1980 and end around the year 2000, honestly the years don't matter they're just estimates for what the general idea of Millennial is which is came of age in the new millennium/born in the 20th century in my eyes. Debating the exact years and cusps and cores gets really really old, tiring, and annoying.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/19/16 at 2:04 am

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

Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y, abbreviated to Gen Y) are the demographic cohort between Generation X and Generation Z. There are no precise dates for when the generation starts and ends. Demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and use the mid 1990s to the early 2000s as final birth years for the Millennial Generation.

Authors Strauss and Howe use 1982 as the Millennials' starting birth year and 2004 as the last birth year, but Howe described the dividing line between Millennials and the following Generation Z as "tentative" saying, "you can’t be sure where history will someday draw a cohort dividing line until a generation fully comes of age."

In his 2008 book The Lucky Few: Between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom, author Elwood Carlson defined this cohort as born between 1983–2001 based on the upswing in births after 1983 and finishing with the "political and social challenges" that occurred after the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001.

In 2009, Australian McCrindle Research Pty Ltd used 1980–1994 as Generation Y birth dates, starting with a recorded rise in birth rates, and fitting their newer definition of a generational span as 15 years. An earlier McCrindle report in 2006 gave a range of 1982–2000, in a document titled "Report on the Attitudes and Views of Generations X and Y on Superannuation".

A 2009 report from MetLife described Millennials as those born between 1977-1994.

In 2013, a global generational study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers with the University of Southern California and the London Business School defined Millennials as those born between 1980–1995.

In May 2013, a Time magazine cover story identified Millennials as those born from 1980 or 1981 to the year 2000.

In 2014, Dale Carnegie Training and MSW Research described Millennial birth years as being between 1980–1996.

A 2014 report from Synchrony Financial describes Millennials as starting as early as 1976.

In 2015, the official body of Statistics Canada defined 1992 as the last year of birth for Generation Y.

In 2016, U.S Pirg described Millennials as those born between 1983 and 2000.

Pew Research Center defines millennials from 1981 onwards. Each year, for now, new 18 year olds are added into the millennial generation.

Gallup Inc., an American research-based global performance-management consulting company, uses 1980-1996 as birth years for this cohort.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/19/16 at 2:07 am

Generation Z (commonly abbreviated to Gen Z, also known as iGeneration or Homeland Generation) are the cohort of people born after the Millennials. There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; researchers and demographers typically use the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s as starting birth years for Generation Z.

Author Neil Howe defines the cohort as people born from approximately 2005–2025, but describes the dividing line between Generation Z and Millennials as "tentative" saying, "you can’t be sure where history will someday draw a cohort dividing line until a generation fully comes of age". He noted that the Millennials' range beginning in 1982 would point to the next generation's window starting between 2000 and 2006.

Australia's McCrindle Research Center defines Generation Z as those born between 1995–2009, starting with a recorded rise in birth rates, and fitting their newer definition of a generational span with a maximum of 15 years. A previous McCrindle report used 2001 as the starting point for this generation.

Adweek defines Generation Z as those born in 1995 or later.

In Japan, generations are defined by a ten year span with "Neo-Digital natives" beginning after 1996.

Statistics Canada defines Generation Z as starting with the birth year 1993.

The Futures Company uses 1997 as the first year of birth for this cohort.

Frank N. Magid Associates, an advertising and marketing agency, uses birth years starting from 1997 into the present day.

Randstad, a human resource consulting firm, describes Generation Z as those born between 1994-2010.

MTV described Generation Z as those born after December 2000, for a survey conducted by the network regarding possible names for the cohort.

Goldman Sachs, a multinational banking firm defines Generation Z as those born since 1998.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/19/16 at 2:14 am


Good post. Anyways, people need to realize that the idea of 1981-2000 born's being the millennial/Y generation has been outdated for a long time now. However, I disagree with late 70's born's being millennials. 1977-1979 are the tail end of X, they were graduated from high school before the Y2K era began. Hell, even 1980 is the tail end of X too. You could really go by many definitions for millennials/Y. It's actually a 15-16 year period, not a 20 year period. 1980-1995, 1981-1996, or 1982-1997. Like I said before, with technology becoming more and more advanced over the years, generations can't really go too long.

Edit: In other words, MOST sources and articles say that millennials/Y range from early 80's born's to mid 90's born's.
Correct. Right you are; however, when I typed in 1977 along with Millennials, some recent articles came up and it included them with in the cohort. Yes, they graduated High school, but remember they were in college throughout the Y2K era which by then was truly a period targeted towards Millennials. As for the 15 years, it could go that way, but I can see this generation being the last with 20 years. Besides, this entire group is huge considering there are about 80 million alone especially as it went through an increase of births per year.


I think Millennials start around 1980 and end around the year 2000, honestly the years don't matter they're just estimates for what the general idea of Millennial is which is came of age in the new millennium/born in the 20th century in my eyes. Debating the exact years and cusps and cores gets really really old, tiring, and annoying.
I agree. That's why it's better using events, traits and other miscellaneous to determine each generation since each one has their own culture and personality.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/19/16 at 2:50 am


Well it's actually not that short as you think. Late 70s is also Millennial. Remember that they were in college throughout the Y2K era and they were into movies such as American Pie, Can't Hardly Wait, Cruel Intentions, Road Trip etc. If you want to know. I've seen some comments from those born around that period and they say don't identify as true Xers. There are others reasons not talked about as much why they're Millennials. One thing is that by the late 70s, the birth rate was increasing again after sometime of low births for 10 years. A majority of them had Boomer teachers and faculty. They're mainly the oldest of their siblings. Most actually have Boomer parents as the latter decided to wait to have children.  Although many were able to vote for Clinton, all of them were in college at the time. Considering that pop culture had fully transitioned to Y by 1998,  they were still part of the target audience making them part of the Pop-Punk, R&B, Nu-Metal and Hip-Hop scene. Last, Gen X is the cohort that's short, so Millennials would be about 20 years.

I'm sorry Eric, but there's absolutely no way those 2001 borns are the oldest of the Plurals. It has to start earlier.

I still disagree with nearly this, but hey to each his own.... ;)
Late 70s born the first millennials?! ???  I still think they'r the youngest Xers. and I still think 1980 and 1981 are the last of X.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/19/16 at 2:53 am


Good post. Anyways, people need to realize that the idea of 1981-2000 born's being the millennial/Y generation has been outdated for a long time now. However, I disagree with late 70's born's being millennials. 1977-1979 are the tail end of X, they were graduated from high school before the Y2K era began. Hell, even 1980 is the tail end of X too. You could really go by many definitions for millennials/Y. It's actually a 15-16 year period, not a 20 year period. 1980-1995, 1981-1996, or 1982-1997. Like I said before, with technology becoming more and more advanced over the years, generations can't really go too long.

Edit: In other words, MOST sources and articles say that millennials/Y range from early 80's born's to mid 90's born's.

This.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/19/16 at 6:50 am

With technology advancing the way it is I wouldn't be surprised if generations ended up only lasting for about 10 years. Only way for a gen to last for a longer time is for things like pop culture and technology to hit a bit of a stagnation. Although I'm still sitting back and waiting to see where people would end Gen Alpha and how long the gen will be.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/19/16 at 9:05 am


I think Millennials start around 1980 and end around the year 2000, honestly the years don't matter they're just estimates for what the general idea of Millennial is which is came of age in the new millennium/born in the 20th century in my eyes. Debating the exact years and cusps and cores gets really really old, tiring, and annoying.


This actually makes sense. Welcome back by the way, hadn't seen you in a while :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 07/19/16 at 5:36 pm


The truth in this post. http://i.imgur.com/tDs4JLY.png

Oh I tried to be Facebook friends with my English teacher, but she told me that was illegal, even after I graduated :o

My prom in 2010 doubled as my Chemistry teacher's retirement party. If he was 65 then, he would have been born 1945 right? That's Silent gen. I think my teachers in Grade 1 and Grade 3 were pushing 60+ in 1998 and 2000, that would make them Silent gen too. I probably had a few other 60+ y/o teachers. In the 2000s, that would mean they were born in the 1940s.
Why would it be illegal?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/19/16 at 6:49 pm


I'm going to take a wild guess that whoever made that graphic was born after 1996. ::)

About half of my teachers in elementary school were either Boomers or Silents, while the other half were older Xers. By the time I was in high school I would say it was a slight majority of Xers.

The oldest teacher I ever had was a lady that taught music class when I was kindergarten and 1st grade. She was born in 1916, putting her firmly in the G.I. Generation. She retired when I was in 3rd grade at the ripe old age of 79! :o


I think that's older than anyone I've ever known :o


Why would it be illegal?


IDK, inappropriate I guess. Or maybe students would feel compelled to hit the accept button even though they don't want to.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/19/16 at 7:16 pm


IDK, inappropriate I guess. Or maybe students would feel compelled to hit the accept button even though they don't want to.


I guess it's because they're legal adults, while you were possibly only a minor when she was teaching you. I never want to friend any of my teachers on Facebook, because it just seems really embarrassing. Especially since I'm still a minor, I don't wanna get into their funny business.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/20/16 at 1:44 am


I still disagree with nearly this, but hey to each his own.... ;)
Late 70s born the first millennials?! ???  I still think they'r the youngest Xers. and I still think 1980 and 1981 are the last of X.
Yeah, if you look at articles, they give you some reasons why late 70s are the oldest. Even recent articles have used 1977/78.


With technology advancing the way it is I wouldn't be surprised if generations ended up only lasting for about 10 years. Only way for a gen to last for a longer time is for things like pop culture and technology to hit a bit of a stagnation. Although I'm still sitting back and waiting to see where people would end Gen Alpha and how long the gen will be.
There's no way that can happen. A generation being 10 years is too small. 15-16 is the minimum I can see with in a cohort. As for technology, it shouldn't be used to define any group. Just because it's advancing doesn't mean generations are now going to be smaller. Tech is always going to advance no matter what and despite the TV and Radio making history, the cohort who witnessed it were still long.


IDK, inappropriate I guess. Or maybe students would feel compelled to hit the accept button even though they don't want to.



I guess it's because they're legal adults, while you were possibly only a minor when she was teaching you. I never want to friend any of my teachers on Facebook, because it just seems really embarrassing. Especially since I'm still a minor, I don't wanna get into their funny business.


Really? there's shouldn't even be anything wrong with having some faculty as your friends. Not only do I have one of my teachers as a friend, but also a speech pathologist I knew as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/20/16 at 6:25 am


Really? there's shouldn't even be anything wrong with having some faculty as your friends. Not only do I have one of my teachers as a friend, but also a speech pathologist I knew as well.


Well... it's just that I don't want them to know what I do on the Internet. Especially on Facebook, since it just seems embarrassing towards me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/20/16 at 7:49 am


Well... it's just that I don't want them to know what I do on the Internet. Especially on Facebook, since it just seems embarrassing towards me.
Well I don't blame you for that for all. I would want the same thing too, but then again my former teacher has photos of her family and events she attended. Maybe it depends on what you do online.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/20/16 at 7:51 am


Well I don't blame you for that for all. I would want the same thing too, but then again my former teacher has photos of her family and events she attended. Maybe it depends on what you do online.


Yeah, but it just seems like if I reveal my Internet life towards them, they would be surprised maybe.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/20/16 at 8:05 am


Yeah, but it just seems like if I reveal my Internet life towards them, they would be surprised maybe.
Well. That I can understand. I don't tell my former teachers (or almost everyone) about what I do online.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/20/16 at 8:14 am


Well. That I can understand. I don't tell my former teachers (or almost everyone) about what I do online.


I don't even tell anyone (except for a few friends) in real life on what I do on the Internet.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/20/16 at 8:25 am


I don't even tell anyone (except for a few friends) in real life on what I do on the Internet.
Oh yeah. Your online business should always be private unless they're your best friends.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 07/20/16 at 8:58 am


Oh yeah. Your online business should always be private unless they're your best friends.

I'm reminded of my school days when I used to talk about my Internet crushes with my classmates and they used said crushes against me to imply that I'm a skank.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/20/16 at 12:33 pm



Really? there's shouldn't even be anything wrong with having some faculty as your friends. Not only do I have one of my teachers as a friend, but also a speech pathologist I knew as well.


Looks like the reason is that teachers have said stupid things in Facebook that got them in trouble, mostly. That and professionalism.

http://professionallyspeaking.oct.ca/june_2009/online_friends.asp

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 07/20/16 at 3:00 pm


I don't even tell anyone (except for a few friends) in real life on what I do on the Internet.



The people that should know are my friends and family.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/20/16 at 4:07 pm



The people that should know are my friends and family.


I don't think my family deserves to know what I do on the Internet.  :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 07/20/16 at 6:00 pm




The oldest teacher I ever had was a lady that taught music class when I was kindergarten and 1st grade. She was born in 1916, putting her firmly in the G.I. Generation. She retired when I was in 3rd grade at the ripe old age of 79! :o

Interesting!

When I was in high school, in the 1990s, there was a science teacher born in the 1920s, putting him in his 70s at the time, but I never had him for a class. I knew how old this guy was because some of my other classmates had him for a class.

But the oldest teacher that I probably had was a special-ed teacher that I had in my later elementary school years, in the early 1990s. She was born in late 1935, making her mid-50s at the time. She had planned to retire by the age of 60, I think.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 07/20/16 at 6:03 pm


I don't even tell anyone (except for a few friends) in real life on what I do on the Internet.

I've told only a few people in real life about what I do here, but never mentioned the site by name. However, once in 2007, someone I know saw me browsing on this site and it looked like fun to him, so he registered and only made a few posts. His account still exists, but he hasn't been on since late '07.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/20/16 at 6:53 pm


I've told only a few people in real life about what I do here, but never mentioned the site by name. However, once in 2007, someone I know saw me browsing on this site and it looked like fun to him, so he registered and only made a few posts. His account still exists, but he hasn't been on since late '07.


What was his account name?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/20/16 at 9:03 pm

Question to the older users. How does it feel to know to you've been on here for around 10 years now? Is it weird to bump into your decade old posts? And what is it like to see so many people join and leave this forum?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 07/20/16 at 9:05 pm

Hey Toon, are you still gonna post in the 00s forum, or have you taken a break from that?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 07/20/16 at 11:19 pm


What was his account name?

EuriskoXP. Don't know where he is now, but I do have him as a friend on Facebook.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/21/16 at 2:34 am

The new Millennium technically started in 2001, not 2000. So people born in 1983 and not 1982 are the first Millennials. I mean they were the first people to turn 18 in the new Millennium. They were the also the first to not hit double digits before the core 90s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: af2010 on 07/21/16 at 5:29 am


The new Millennium technically started in 2001, not 2000. So people born in 1983 and not 1982 are the first Millennials. I mean they were the first people to turn 18 in the new Millennium. They were the also the first to not hit double digits before the core 90s.


What's the significance of any of those things? They're just numbers...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 07/21/16 at 9:12 am


Yeah same here. I totally see you guys as the youngest of the Millennials. As for the transition, it makes sense considering that there are some similar traits you guys share in common and that are certain events you can't recall. Here's an image that shows which attributes you guys have equally.

http://www.ey.com/Media/vwLUExtFile/EY-rise-of-gen-znew-challenge-for-retailers/$FILE/img-01.jpg
Yeah, that's true since most graduate with a Bachelor's from a university within 4 years; however, you're right that some majors take more than 4 though. I have a friend who wants to be a nurse and she has been in the program for 3 years. Right now, she has 5 left to go, and she currently has her medical associate's. I remember her telling me I think her goal was to earn a doctorate degree which takes 8 years to complete.
I know. ;D ;D ;D ;D There's no way they can be Xers. If we factor in events, traits, education, other misc. etc., then we receive a different outcome and their experiences in no way overlap with a Gen X viewpoint at all.
That picture makes sense because Gen Z is a generation that mentally ages in dog years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/21/16 at 9:26 am


Hey Toon, are you still gonna post in the 00s forum, or have you taken a break from that?


Yeah, I'm still post in the 00s forum. Don't plan on taking any breaks as of right now.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 07/21/16 at 10:06 am


That picture makes sense because Gen Z is a generation that mentally ages in dog years.


Yeah, it's crazy how fast they mature! I didn't even realize, though, that Z'ers are so far considered self-aware, proactive, and realist, in contrast to the sloth and superficiality of my generation. It suppose online/digital technology has worked far more to their advantage than for millennials. If this is all true, it actually makes me pretty optimistic about whatever popular culture emerges in the coming decade.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/21/16 at 10:09 am


Yeah, it's crazy how fast they mature! I didn't even realize, though, that Z'ers are so far considered self-aware, proactive, and realist, in contrast to the sloth and superficiality of my generation. It suppose online/digital technology has worked far more to their advantage than for millennials. If this is all true, it actually makes me pretty optimistic about whatever popular culture emerges in the coming decade.


Same. Seems a lot of people are optimistic about how things will be in the future in relation to Gen Z. I've seen kids who seemed much more mature than I was when I was their age and they seem more aware of things. For Millennials it says that they don't fully mature until they reach their late 20s to 30s. For Plurals they could mature when they're in their early 20s.

As someone with a bunch of younger siblings its crazy on how fast they're growing mentally. For me it seemed like forever to finally mature.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/21/16 at 10:14 am


Same. Seems a lot of people are optimistic about how things will be in the future in relation to Gen Z. I've seen kids who seemed much more mature than I was when I was their age and they seem more aware of things. For Millennials it says that they don't fully mature until they reach their late 20s to 30s. For Plurals they could mature when they're in their early 20s.

As someone with a bunch of younger siblings its crazy on how fast they're growing mentally. For me it seemed like forever to finally mature.


Heh. I never knew that today's kids are growing more mature than the previous generations. Last night, I thought today's kids would seem less innocent because of the technology that they are surrounded with.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/21/16 at 10:21 am


Heh. I never knew that today's kids are growing more mature than the previous generations. Last night, I thought today's kids would seem less innocent because of the technology that they are surrounded with.


That's what a lot of us originally thought, but apparently it seems to be the opposite. I guess since Plurals are digital natives the way they experience technology and its effect on them are different than the earlier generations. As the world becomes more and more digital being a digital native is probably a good thing. Need new young minds to lead the new age, I suppose.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/21/16 at 10:33 am


That's what a lot of us originally thought, but apparently it seems to be the opposite. I guess since Plurals are digital natives the way they experience technology and its effect on them are different than the earlier generations. As the world becomes more and more digital being a digital native is probably a good thing. Need new young minds to lead the new age, I suppose.


I suppose modern technology would make kids more intelligent and literate. They would be more progressive when times change.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/21/16 at 10:58 am


I suppose modern technology would make kids more intelligent and literate. They would be more progressive when times change.


Which is a good thing. It shows that the advancements of technology is having a positive effect on the millions of kids. It's just interesting to see how so many people from older generations are starting to put quite a bit of hope into Plurals. I look at my younger siblings and wonder what crazy progressive things they'd take part in as time moves on.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/21/16 at 11:27 am


Looks like the reason is that teachers have said stupid things in Facebook that got them in trouble, mostly. That and professionalism.

http://professionallyspeaking.oct.ca/june_2009/online_friends.asp
Well that's something I understand. However, that depends on the stupid things they say.


The new Millennium technically started in 2001, not 2000. So people born in 1983 and not 1982 are the first Millennials. I mean they were the first people to turn 18 in the new Millennium. They were the also the first to not hit double digits before the core 90s.
Correct, but that's only one element. I'm telling you guys, one day I can see this generation starting in the late 70s for multiple reasons.


That picture makes sense because Gen Z is a generation that mentally ages in dog years.



Yeah, it's crazy how fast they mature! I didn't even realize, though, that Z'ers are so far considered self-aware, proactive, and realist, in contrast to the sloth and superficiality of my generation. It suppose online/digital technology has worked far more to their advantage than for millennials. If this is all true, it actually makes me pretty optimistic about whatever popular culture emerges in the coming decade.
They're not just maturing mentally, but physically as well. Some kids I've seen in the city look more like adolescents than actual children. Same thing with teens as well except some definitely look like adults. I feel like they're going to be wiser than every prior generation in the future.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 07/21/16 at 2:47 pm

They're not just maturing mentally, but physically as well. Some kids I've seen in the city look more like adolescents than actual children. Same thing with teens as well except some definitely look like adults. I feel like they're going to be wiser than every prior generation in the future.

It's crazy to think there are now people born in the early 2000s who look and act like they could pass for full-grown young adults!  :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 07/21/16 at 2:52 pm


I don't think my family deserves to know what I do on the Internet.  :P


My family sometimes do.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/21/16 at 3:02 pm


It's crazy to think there are now people born in the early 2000s who look and act like they could pass for full-grown young adults!  :o
I know!!! That reminds me. I found a few videos a while back and there were these girls who look way much older than they are.

Do these girls look older to you in some way?

vct7Z3PWzy4

jlkkOexK0oo

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/21/16 at 6:56 pm

You'd see people who look 14 yet they say that they're 11 or something. Makes me wonder what caused Plurals to age faster physically. I remember running into a 15 year old who looked 18. That threw my mind in a loop.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/21/16 at 7:06 pm


You'd see people who look 14 yet they say that they're 11 or something. Makes me wonder what caused Plurals to age faster physically. I remember running into a 15 year old who looked 18. That threw my mind in a loop.
Well, this image is definitely needed for this post.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/girls-be-vs-guys-be-acting.jpg

Yeah, I know. I've reading about the reasons and it seems it has to do with growth hormones. The fact this generation is aging quicker than prior cohorts is crazy. You see 13 year old girls who look like they're 21. :o :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 07/22/16 at 12:08 am


Yeah, it's crazy how fast they mature! I didn't even realize, though, that Z'ers are so far considered self-aware, proactive, and realist, in contrast to the sloth and superficiality of my generation. It suppose online/digital technology has worked far more to their advantage than for millennials. If this is all true, it actually makes me pretty optimistic about whatever popular culture emerges in the coming decade.

In your opinion, what parenting styles probably contributed to this?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 07/22/16 at 10:49 am


In your opinion, what parenting styles probably contributed to this?


My best guess is that Generation Z has not really grown up in the cozy living room age of the 80s to early 2000s, as millennials a did. Instead of accumulating physical things that don't amount to anything that productive, Z kids have been exposed to far more information at a young age and thus been forced to think for themselves much sooner. The Internet was too young before the advent of Wikipedia, YouTube, social media, and broadband to foster the same rate of growth for millennial kids and teens.

I don't think the successful growth in Z'ers has anything to do with parenting; if anything, Gen-X'ers seem like pretty irresponsible parents. They allow their little kids to run around public places unrestrained and don't do much to quiet them down when they're causing lots of noise. Whatever happened to pacifiers? Honestly, I don't understand why they've become virtually extinct in recent times.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/22/16 at 9:52 pm


Interesting!

When I was in high school, in the 1990s, there was a science teacher born in the 1920s, putting him in his 70s at the time, but I never had him for a class. I knew how old this guy was because some of my other classmates had him for a class.

But the oldest teacher that I probably had was a special-ed teacher that I had in my later elementary school years, in the early 1990s. She was born in late 1935, making her mid-50s at the time. She had planned to retire by the age of 60, I think.


I knew of a few teachers born in the 1920s that were still teaching when I was in elementary school, which was back in the '90s. There was a substitute teacher at my elementary school that was in her 70's back then, so I know she must've been born sometime before 1925. The oldest main teacher that I ever had was my 4th grade teacher, who was around 60 in the 1996-97 school year, putting her birth somewhere around 1935 or 1936.


Question to the older users. How does it feel to know to you've been on here for around 10 years now? Is it weird to bump into your decade old posts? And what is it like to see so many people join and leave this forum?


I gotta say, it's pretty freaking strange. Someone just bumped a Pokemon thread from 2006 earlier that has my posts all over it, and it's quite bizarre to read stuff you posted over ten years ago. Of course, it's still hard for me to fathom that 2006 is now ten years ago period. :o

On the other point, it has been somewhat sad to see so many users come and go over the years. Unfortunately, alot of people I really liked talking to on this forum back in 2006-07 are long gone and I haven't heard anything from them in years. If anything, all these old threads from '06 being bumped are reminding me of just how few posters from back then are still left now. :(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 07/22/16 at 10:41 pm


I knew of a few teachers born in the 1920s that were still teaching when I was in elementary school, which was back in the '90s. There was a substitute teacher at my elementary school that was in her 70's back then, so I know she must've been born sometime before 1925. The oldest main teacher that I ever had was my 4th grade teacher, who was around 60 in the 1996-97 school year, putting her birth somewhere around 1935 or 1936.


Interesting. I might have even had some substitute teachers that were born circa 1930 (or earlier) -- making them at least 60 when they substitute-taught me -- but I'm not 100% sure on that. They could've been, though.

I do know that I had a few college professors who were born in the 1930s, making them 60+ when I had them for a class. In fact, during my very first college semester, in fall 1998, one such professor just might have been one of those people.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/23/16 at 9:53 am


1979 - X/Y cusp leaning X (first election: 1998 midterms)
1980 - X/Y cusp leaning X
1981 - X/Y cusp leaning Y (2000 presidential)
1982 - X/Y cusp leaning Y
1983 - Early Y (2002 midterms)
1984 - Early Y
1985 - Pure Y (2004 presidential)
1986 - Pure Y
1987 - Pure Y (2006 midterms)
1988 - Pure Y
1989 - Pure Y (2008 presidential)
1990 - Pure Y
1991 - Pure Y (2010 midterms)
1992 - Pure Y
1993 - Late Y (2012 presidential)
1994 - Late Y
1995 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y (2014 midterms)
1996 - Y/Z cusp leaning Y
1997 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z (2016 presidential)
1998 - Y/Z cusp leaning Z
1999 - Early Z (2018 midterms)
2000 - Early Z
2001 - Pure Z (2020 presidential)
2002 - Pure Z

Shower thoughts. You can extend this backwards too :o

If you're born in December then you can punt yourself to the next year you poser.


Okay, well...

1946 - Early Boomer (Voting age 21: 1968 presidential)
1947 - Early Boomer
1948 - Early Boomer (1970 midterms)
1949 - Peak Boomer
1950 - Peak Boomer (Voting age lowered to 18: 1972 presidential)
1951 - Peak Boomer
1952 - Peak Boomer
1953 - Peak Boomer
1954 - Peak Boomer
1955 - Late Boomer (1974 midterms)
1956 - Late Boomer
1957 - Gen Joneser (1976 presidential)
1958 - Gen Joneser
1959 - Gen Joneser (1978 midterms)
1960 - Gen Joneser
1961 - Gen Joneser (1980 presidential)
1962 - Gen Joneser
1963 - Gen Joneser (1982 midterms)
1964 - Gen Joneser
1965 - Early X (1984 presidential)
1966 - Early X
1967 - Early X (1986 midterms)
1968 - Peak X
1969 - Peak X (1988 presidential)
1970 - Peak X
1971 - Peak X (1990 midterms)
1972 - Peak X
1973 - Peak X (1992 presidential)
1974 - Peak X
1975 - Late X (1994 midterms)
1976 - Late X
1977 - Late X (1996 presidential)
1978 - Late X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/23/16 at 4:02 pm


Well, this image is definitely needed for this post.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/girls-be-vs-guys-be-acting.jpg

Yeah, I know. I've reading about the reasons and it seems it has to do with growth hormones. The fact this generation is aging quicker than prior cohorts is crazy. You see 13 year old girls who look like they're 21. :o :o


Uh oh..... hope we don't see a rise of pedophilia. People having sex with underage teens who look like their adults.  :( :-\\  My only advice to Plurals is to ALWAYS make sure that the person you're with can prove his/her age. We don't need some guy going to prison because he thought the girl was 22 when in reality she was 16.

And yes that image is accurate. Guys will be in their early 20s acting like they're 13-14. We just like to have fun.  8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 07/23/16 at 6:57 pm


Yeah, it's crazy how fast they mature! I didn't even realize, though, that Z'ers are so far considered self-aware, proactive, and realist, in contrast to the sloth and superficiality of my generation. It suppose online/digital technology has worked far more to their advantage than for millennials. If this is all true, it actually makes me pretty optimistic about whatever popular culture emerges in the coming decade.
It's quite a contrast to Generation Y which grew up fast in the wrong ways.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/23/16 at 8:34 pm


And yes that image is accurate. Guys will be in their early 20s acting like they're 13-14. We just like to have fun.  8)


I can confirm that alot of guys in their late 20s still act that way, too. :P ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/23/16 at 10:00 pm


Okay, well...

1946 - Early Boomer (Voting age 21: 1968 presidential)
1947 - Early Boomer
1948 - Early Boomer (1970 midterms)
1949 - Peak Boomer
1950 - Peak Boomer (Voting age lowered to 18: 1972 presidential)
1951 - Peak Boomer
1952 - Peak Boomer
1953 - Peak Boomer
1954 - Peak Boomer
1955 - Late Boomer (1974 midterms)
1956 - Late Boomer
1957 - Gen Joneser (1976 presidential)
1958 - Gen Joneser
1959 - Gen Joneser (1978 midterms)
1960 - Gen Joneser
1961 - Gen Joneser (1980 presidential)
1962 - Gen Joneser
1963 - Gen Joneser (1982 midterms)
1964 - Gen Joneser
1965 - Early X (1984 presidential)
1966 - Early X
1967 - Early X (1986 midterms)
1968 - Peak X
1969 - Peak X (1988 presidential)
1970 - Peak X
1971 - Peak X (1990 midterms)
1972 - Peak X
1973 - Peak X (1992 presidential)
1974 - Peak X
1975 - Late X (1994 midterms)
1976 - Late X
1977 - Late X (1996 presidential)
1978 - Late X


What do you consider someone between the boundaries? Like Someone born in Late 64 but couldn't vote in the 82 Mid terms. But they graduated with the class of 1982 and had the same culture as they did?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/23/16 at 10:17 pm


Okay, well...

1946 - Early Boomer (Voting age 21: 1968 presidential)
1947 - Early Boomer
1948 - Early Boomer (1970 midterms)
1949 - Peak Boomer
1950 - Peak Boomer (Voting age lowered to 18: 1972 presidential)
1951 - Peak Boomer
1952 - Peak Boomer
1953 - Peak Boomer
1954 - Peak Boomer
1955 - Late Boomer (1974 midterms)
1956 - Late Boomer
1957 - Gen Joneser (1976 presidential)
1958 - Gen Joneser
1959 - Gen Joneser (1978 midterms)
1960 - Gen Joneser
1961 - Gen Joneser (1980 presidential)
1962 - Gen Joneser
1963 - Gen Joneser (1982 midterms)
1964 - Gen Joneser
1965 - Early X (1984 presidential)
1966 - Early X
1967 - Early X (1986 midterms)
1968 - Peak X
1969 - Peak X (1988 presidential)
1970 - Peak X
1971 - Peak X (1990 midterms)
1972 - Peak X
1973 - Peak X (1992 presidential)
1974 - Peak X
1975 - Late X (1994 midterms)
1976 - Late X
1977 - Late X (1996 presidential)
1978 - Late X


Ooo, I didn't know the voting age was 21 until 1950, interesting. I think this works :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/23/16 at 11:21 pm


Ooo, I didn't know the voting age was 21 until 1950, interesting. I think this works :D


Actually, I think I may have typed that out in a confusing way. The voting age in the U.S. was 21 until 1971, when the 26th amendment lowered it to 18. 1968 was the last presidential election where you had to be 21 to vote, and 1972 was the first that allowed the 18-year-old vote.

Here in the U.S. this change mostly came about due to the Vietnam War, and the glaring hypocrisy that you could be drafted into the military to fight at 18, but weren't allowed to vote until 21.


I've heard some people say that Boomers start in 1945 instead of '46; what do you guys think of this?

Even though the birth rates technically didn't spike until 46, people born in '45 seem to have grown up in pretty much the same environment as 46ers. For example, Pete Townshend of The Who, despite being born in '45, seems VERY much like a Boomer to me, whatnot with his rebellious attitude and contributions to the 60s music scene.

When he wrote the songs "My Generation" and "I've Known No War", he definitely wasn't describing the Silent Generation in those lyrics. ;D

The Beatles (born 1940-43) also feel like Boomers, to me at least. Ray Davies (b. 1944), I also think of as being a Boomer - at least attitude-wise.


It is interesting how people that age can vary. John Lennon, despite being born in 1940, is sort of like the consummate "Baby Boomer" in terms of his attitude and demeanor. Actually, Lennon is only five years younger than Elvis, but it seems more like fifteen when you compare the two.

Likewise, my maternal grandmother was born in 1940 as well, but she's unquestionably a Silent. She was 24 and married by the time the Beatles arrived in the States in 1964, and she's never really been a fan of them. She (along with my grandfather who was in born 1939) mainly prefers music from the '50s and early '60s, and considers culture pre-'64 to be "her time".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/24/16 at 8:59 am


It is interesting how people that age can vary. John Lennon, despite being born in 1940, is sort of like the consummate "Baby Boomer" in terms of his attitude and demeanor. Actually, Lennon is only five years younger than Elvis, but it seems more like fifteen when you compare the two.

Likewise, my maternal grandmother was born in 1940 as well, but she's unquestionably a Silent. She was 24 and married by the time the Beatles arrived in the States in 1964, and she's never really been a fan of them. She (along with my grandfather who was in born 1939) mainly prefers music from the '50s and early '60s, and considers culture pre-'64 to be "her time".


That seems to be different for my grandparents who were both born in 1938. They actually liked the Beatles, who became popular in the States around 1964. They pretty much enjoyed most music from the 1960s. So, I suppose it was like their time for music. Despite that they were teenagers during the 50s, my grandparents (especially my grandma) weren't really big fans of 50s stars. They probably did, but I think they liked the 60s better.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/24/16 at 4:43 pm


I'm annoyed that there are STILL people who consider those born in '77-'80 to be Millennials! >:( They're Gen X, by far.


That seems to be bizarre.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/24/16 at 5:04 pm

Do the generation labels apply the same to other countries? Is Adele a Millennial? I'm not sure because she's British.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 07/24/16 at 5:19 pm

Why is my birth year, 1980 listed under two generations? I mean, really ::) What is it! It's just confusing everyone.

http://www.careerplanner.com/Career-Articles/Generations.cfm

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/24/16 at 8:35 pm


Uh oh..... hope we don't see a rise of pedophilia. People having sex with underage teens who look like their adults.  :( :-\\  My only advice to Plurals is to ALWAYS make sure that the person you're with can prove his/her age. We don't need some guy going to prison because he thought the girl was 22 when in reality she was 16.

And yes that image is accurate. Guys will be in their early 20s acting like they're 13-14. We just like to have fun.  8)
It probably won't happen considering by then, science will know that folks are aging quicker than ever before. I mean for one thing, with chemicals being used with hormones, is why some people are starting their growth much younger.


I've heard some people say that Boomers start in 1945 instead of '46; what do you guys think of this?

Even though the birth rates technically didn't spike until 46, people born in '45 seem to have grown up in pretty much the same environment as 46ers. For example, Pete Townshend of The Who, despite being born in '45, seems VERY much like a Boomer to me, whatnot with his rebellious attitude and contributions to the 60s music scene.

When he wrote the songs "My Generation" and "I've Known No War", he definitely wasn't describing the Silent Generation in those lyrics. ;D

The Beatles (born 1940-43) also feel like Boomers, to me at least. Ray Davies (b. 1944), I also think of as being a Boomer - at least attitude-wise.
Actually, the birth rate began to spike sometime in the early 40s despite WW2 taking place. It was almost close to 3 million doing those years.

As for when the generation begins, I've seen it start early as 1942/43 on a few sites; however, since boomer culture didn't generally begin until 1964, people who were part of the late 50s/early 60s pop culture could have had Silent generation traits.


I'm annoyed that there are STILL people who consider those born in '77-'80 to be Millennials! >:( They're Gen X, by far.
Well not really. Honestly, I've seen comments from those people within that range that have considered themselves as Millennials. Along with that, there's also the factors where they were in college during the Y2K era; they watched movies such as American Pie, Varsity Blues, Can't Hardly Wait, Bring It On and Not a Teen Movie; they were part of the Pop-Punk, Hip-Hop, R&B of the early 00s; their parents were more likely to be Boomers than Silents; their children are more likely to be Alphas than Plurals; the second baby boom began around that time period after a long decline in birth rates and last, they have more traits of a Millennial than Gen X. Seriously, have you seen these people be all that sarcastic and cynical?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 07/24/16 at 8:40 pm

Kanye West (b. 1977) seems like a pretty sarcastic guy. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/24/16 at 8:41 pm


Kanye West (b. 1977) seems like a pretty sarcastic guy. ;D


Anyone could be sarcastic in any generation. So, I don't get of how somebody born in a Gen X year could be considered as highly sarcastic. Pretty much anybody who was born in any era, could have a sarcastic sense of humor.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/24/16 at 8:48 pm


Kanye West (b. 1977) seems like a pretty sarcastic guy. ;D
Well he is, but he doesn't have the other traits associated with Gen X.


Anyone could be sarcastic in any generation. So, I don't get of how somebody born in a Gen X year could be considered as highly sarcastic. Pretty much anybody who was born in any era, could have a sarcastic sense of humor.
That's true, but many Gen Xers are truly sarcastic.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/24/16 at 8:49 pm


That's true, but many Gen Xers are truly sarcastic.


What does being sarcastic have to deal with belonging towards a specific generation?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/24/16 at 8:54 pm


What does being sarcastic have to deal with belonging towards a specific generation?
Well that's one of their traits. I'm aware that everyone can be sarcastic, but Gen X are definitely the kings of sarcasm. Watch a few of the movies that describe them and you'll see what I mean.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: TheKid99 on 07/24/16 at 11:57 pm


Well that's one of their traits. I'm aware that everyone can be sarcastic, but Gen X are definitely the kings of sarcasm. Watch a few of the movies that describe them and you'll see what I mean.

Its apart of a larger cynical view of the world that Gen X has...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/25/16 at 2:19 pm


On the other point, it has been somewhat sad to see so many users come and go over the years. Unfortunately, alot of people I really liked talking to on this forum back in 2006-07 are long gone and I haven't heard anything from them in years. If anything, all these old threads from '06 being bumped are reminding me of just how few posters from back then are still left now. :(
I feel the same way. Despite being on here for 3 years, there were a few others who made great discussions that I don't see here as often anymore either because they moved on or they deleted their account. :( Hell, even the users who signed up 3-5 years ago don't come on here anymore either and they were here for one or 2 years. :o


Why is my birth year, 1980 listed under two generations? I mean, really ::) What is it! It's just confusing everyone.

http://www.careerplanner.com/Career-Articles/Generations.cfm
It's Millennial. There's truly no way people your age can still be Gen X.


Its apart of a larger cynical view of the world that Gen X has...
Yep. This is exactly what I meant. Since they're cynical, they're more likely to be sarcastic than other generations.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Willmisses2004 on 07/25/16 at 3:20 pm

Silent: 1925-1945
Baby Boomers: 1946-1964
Generation X: 1965-1983
Millennials: 1984-2004          I screwed up somewhere along the line but that's how I think of it as.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/25/16 at 5:29 pm


Silent: 1925-1945
Baby Boomers: 1946-1964
Generation X: 1965-1983
Millennials: 1984-2004          I screwed up somewhere along the line but that's how I think of it as.


Generation X ends at 1980, and other than 2000 born's debatably being the last year for millennials (even though most ppl disagree) everybody born in the 2000's are part of Gen Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 07/25/16 at 7:07 pm


Generation X ends at 1980, and other than 2000 born's debatably being the last year for millennials (even though most ppl disagree) everybody born in the 2000's are part of Gen Z.


The reason why I always like to consider 1995-1999 borns as Millennials is because these people are still born before 2000 and also, many like to follow millennial traits (dressing like hipsters, having tattoos, liking pop and trap music, being cool, etc.)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/27/16 at 12:47 am


Silent: 1925-1945
Baby Boomers: 1946-1964
Generation X: 1965-1983
Millennials: 1984-2004          I screwed up somewhere along the line but that's how I think of it as.

I think Silents began a little earlier than stated. I mean there's no way the GI cohort can be 25 years!

Since the Boomers are a huge generation themselves, the span is definitely about 20 years.

For Xers, they are one of the smallest generations, so the max is pretty much 15 years.

Millennials, are also another large generation, so they are about 20 years as well.


Generation X ends at 1980, and other than 2000 born's debatably being the last year for millennials (even though most ppl disagree) everybody born in the 2000's are part of Gen Z.
That's debatable as well. Those at the end of Gen X could possibly be considered Millennials going by the reasons I listed.

As for 2000, they're definitely Plurals. I used to see them as Millennials, but after some time had passed and changes happening, they can't be part of the Y2K cohort at all.


The reason why I always like to consider 1995-1999 borns as Millennials is because these people are still born before 2000 and also, many like to follow millennial traits (dressing like hipsters, having tattoos, liking pop and trap music, being cool, etc.)
This! I can see this group being considered the last of the Millennials (unless there are good reasons why Plurals begin at 1995 that we're not aware of).


Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/28/16 at 12:35 am


The popularization of the Internet is one of the commonly cited reasons for Gen Z starting in 1995.

If you subscribe to the idea that Millennials began in 1977, then that would make the span of that generation 1977-1994, or 17 years. Not unreasonable if you ask me.

However, if you're using these spans, you'd also have to use the 1961-1976 span for Gen X. 1965-1976 is just too short.

And you'd also have to use Strauss-Howe's span of 1943-1960 for Boomers, cause I think 1946-1960 is just one year too short.
I see that all the time. There's also the the factor that those who were in school during the 1999-00 year  are definitely Millennials while anyone not in school at that time are considered Plurals.

As for the 1977-94 span, there are actual reasons stated online why it's like that and one of them seems to be the returning increase of the birth rate after 10 years of decline.

I've seen 1961-76 as the X span before, so that could be a good span. We have to to remember that they are a short generation as they have less members.  As for Boomers, they're also about 20 years as well since there were so many of them. If you noticed, there were about 80 million Boomers back then especially since there was a very high birth rate which is why many families had up to 8/9/10 kids at once.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/28/16 at 9:12 am

I'll never see late 70s born as Millennial. Anything before 1982 is not millennial to me. Still surprised this stuff is still in debate. Not even sure if an agreement in gen span will be decided on. Just people throwing ranges back and forth. Or at least this is what it seems like. It'll be 2078 and people would still debate back and forth.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/28/16 at 9:40 am


I'll never see late 70s born as Millennial. Anything before 1982 is not millennial to me. Still surprised this stuff is still in debate. Not even sure if an agreement in gen span will be decided on. Just people throwing ranges back and forth. Or at least this is what it seems like. It'll be 2078 and people would still debate back and forth.


1981 are the first millennials IMO, and I agree. I don't care about the generational stuff anymore. Nobody can tell me who I'm apart of. I wish these generational stereotypes and definitions didn't exist....

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/28/16 at 12:49 pm


I'll never see late 70s born as Millennial. Anything before 1982 is not millennial to me. Still surprised this stuff is still in debate. Not even sure if an agreement in gen span will be decided on. Just people throwing ranges back and forth. Or at least this is what it seems like. It'll be 2078 and people would still debate back and forth.


I like Brian's train of thought about how the birth years are more of a guideline to give you an idea of what age group you're talking about, rather than trying to say that people born a few years apart grew up in completely different worlds.

So without mentioning any specific birth years, millennials generally refers to people born in the early 1980s to late 1990s/early 2000s, Gen X refers to people born in the mid-1960s to late 1970s/early 1980s, Gen Z is people born late 1990s/early 2000s onward.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 07/28/16 at 7:41 pm


I'll never see late 70s born as Millennial. Anything before 1982 is not millennial to me. Still surprised this stuff is still in debate. Not even sure if an agreement in gen span will be decided on. Just people throwing ranges back and forth. Or at least this is what it seems like. It'll be 2078 and people would still debate back and forth.

Question for you, Toon: do you consider mqg (b. 1996) and Eric (b. 1995) the same generation as you, or the beginning of Plurals?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/28/16 at 11:14 pm


Question for you, Toon: do you consider mqg (b. 1996) and Eric (b. 1995) the same generation as you, or the beginning of Plurals?


Is Toon born 1989 or 1994? I think I remember him mentioning his birthday or graduating year somewhere, but he deleted his account so I can't even check. >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/29/16 at 12:44 am


Is Toon born 1989 or 1994? I think I remember him mentioning his birthday or graduating year somewhere, but he deleted his account so I can't even check. >:(
1990. He told me in a message.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/29/16 at 12:50 am


I'll never see late 70s born as Millennial. Anything before 1982 is not millennial to me. Still surprised this stuff is still in debate. Not even sure if an agreement in gen span will be decided on. Just people throwing ranges back and forth. Or at least this is what it seems like. It'll be 2078 and people would still debate back and forth.



I like Brian's train of thought about how the birth years are more of a guideline to give you an idea of what age group you're talking about, rather than trying to say that people born a few years apart grew up in completely different worlds.

So without mentioning any specific birth years, millennials generally refers to people born in the early 1980s to late 1990s/early 2000s, Gen X refers to people born in the mid-1960s to late 1970s/early 1980s, Gen Z is people born late 1990s/early 2000s onward.
That's why it's better with using those guidelines to stick with events, traits and other miscellaneous as they are more universal to determine which generation someone is apart of.

Right now, Plurals are those generally under 18. Millennials, are those mostly 21 and over, but under 40 (or late 30s). Gen Xers are those  mainly late 30s to early 50s. Boomers are those over 50, but about under 70.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/29/16 at 1:08 am


1990. He told me in a message.


Wow if pansy millennial are those who were in high school 2004-2008, then he's peak pansy.

And he tried to deflect that onto me. I see what he's up to.


I hereby declare Slowpoke as the quintessential pansy millennial. Wear this title with honor, soldier.  8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 07/29/16 at 3:52 am

WTF, Toon's born in 1990!? First Zelek, now you. I keep thinking all you guys are born in 1998 or something.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/29/16 at 6:25 am


WTF, Toon's born in 1990!? First Zelek, now you. I keep thinking all you guys are born in 1998 or something.


If they were born in 1998, then how could they remember most of the shows that aired on Cartoon Network in the early 2000s? Unless they had Boomerang as a kid.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/29/16 at 11:36 am


WTF, Toon's born in 1990!? First Zelek, now you. I keep thinking all you guys are born in 1998 or something.


Proof that Gen Z starts with 1990.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 1:14 pm


Wow if pansy millennial are those who were in high school 2004-2008, then he's peak pansy.

And he tried to deflect that onto me. I see what he's up to.


I still hereby name Slowpoke as the quintessential pansy millennial. You'll keep that title with honor, soldier.  8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 1:15 pm


WTF, Toon's born in 1990!? First Zelek, now you. I keep thinking all you guys are born in 1998 or something.


Not sure how I gave off the idea that I was born in '98.  ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 1:20 pm


Question for you, Toon: do you consider mqg (b. 1996) and Eric (b. 1995) the same generation as you, or the beginning of Plurals?


Not sure. It's not up to me really. Both Mqg and Eric are complex individuals so I can't really go around labeling people as part of my generation. But if I had to try then I'd say that I don't see them as Plurals. I guess it's because they mainly grew up in a world filled with Millennial culture. By the time Millennial culture started to fade they were already 18+. Meaning that the even if there is some hint of Plural attitude in them it's probably outweighed by the Millennial attitude, but again this is all just my little opinion. How they feel and who they relate to is entirely dependent on them.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 1:22 pm


Is Toon born 1989 or 1994? I think I remember him mentioning his birthday or graduating year somewhere, but he deleted his account so I can't even check. >:(


Some have confused me with another person. So they thought I was 1989, but that got cleared up. As for 1994 I'm confused on how you got that idea.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/29/16 at 1:26 pm


I still hereby name Slowpoke as the quintessential pansy millennial. You'll keep that title with honor, soldier.  8)


I wish! You had both MCR's Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge AND Black Parade during your high school tenure, I cannot compete.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/29/16 at 1:29 pm


Not sure how I gave off the idea that I was born in '98.  ???


You said being a late 2000s teen was cool ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 1:31 pm


I wish! You had both MCR's Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge AND Black Parade during your high school tenure, I cannot compete.


Starting to get a bit nostalgia here. Can't believed it's been over 10 years since I've heard those. But wait didn't you have these in your Middle School years?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 1:32 pm


You said being a late 2000s teen was cool ;D


I was talking about for other people who were late 2000s teens. Being an adult in the late 2000s wasn't too great for me. But I always saw teens having a good time. So I assumed being a late 2000s teen was cool. Also someone from 1998 was never a teen in the late 2000s. By 2009  they were 11. Not 13+ or in high school.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 1:41 pm


That's why it's better with using those guidelines to stick with events, traits and other miscellaneous as they are more universal to determine which generation someone is apart of.

Right now, Plurals are those generally under 18. Millennials, are those mostly 21 and over, but under 40 (or late 30s). Gen Xers are those  mainly late 30s to early 50s. Boomers are those over 50, but about under 70.


Not using specific beginning and end points makes things a tad easier. I can get behind the idea of Plurals mostly being under 18 as saying that they're mainly 20+ in age doesn't make sense. But saying that it starts in 199X or 200X doesn't work as well. Saying things like "This gen generally consists of those within their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, or 60s" works better.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/29/16 at 1:41 pm


Starting to get a bit nostalgia here. Can't believed it's been over 10 years since I've heard those. But wait didn't you have these in your Middle School years?


Shush. Middle school doesn't count.


I was talking about for other people who were late 2000s teens. Being an adult in the late 2000s wasn't too great for me. But I always saw teens having a good time. So I assumed being a late 2000s teen was cool. Also someone from 1998 was never a teen in the late 2000s. By 2009  they were 11. Not 13+ or in high school.


Weren't you a teen in the late 2000s too? :o 2007-08 was the last pure late 2000s school year. In 2008-09, the late 2000s were dying out fast.

I meant that in a "only young people would think being a teen in the 2000s is cool" kind of way ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 07/29/16 at 1:45 pm

I thought Toon was born in 1993! :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 1:47 pm


Shush. Middle school doesn't count.

Oh yes it does.  8) Middle Schoolers also take part in pop culture. Or at least that's what it seems like.



Weren't you a teen in the late 2000s too? :o 2007-08 was the last pure late 2000s school year. In 2008-09, the late 2000s were dying out fast.

I meant that in a "only young people would think being a teen in the 2000s is cool" kind of way ;D


I was, but mainly in my late teens (17-19). But the people my age were too busy complaining about how it was hard for them to find jobs or get into college due to the recession. Yeah, the late 2000s was dying out fast as the 2010s culture was running it.

Ah, I get ya. Well it seemed like the teenagers were always having such a great time. Talking about the latest albums or laughing at funny cultural events. Maybe I was just getting the wrong idea.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/29/16 at 1:48 pm


I thought Toon was born in 1993! :P


What made you think he was born in 1993?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 1:48 pm


I thought Toon was born in 1993! :P


Man, it seems everyone was having a crazy time trying to guess my age.  :o You guys could've just PM asked me or something.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/29/16 at 1:56 pm


Man, it seems everyone was having a crazy time trying to guess my age.  :o You guys could've just PM asked me or something.  ;D


Honestly, I thought you were Eric's (Eazy-EMan1995) age, since it seemed you like most early 2000s kid stuff.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/29/16 at 1:58 pm


Oh yes it does.  8) Middle Schoolers also take part in pop culture. Or at least that's what it seems like.


I was, but mainly in my late teens (17-19). But the people my age were too busy complaining about how it was hard for them to find jobs or get into college due to the recession. Yeah, the late 2000s was dying out fast as the 2010s culture was running it.

Ah, I get ya. Well it seemed like the teenagers were always having such a great time. Talking about the latest albums or laughing at funny cultural events. Maybe I was just getting the wrong idea.


We all do embarrassing things in middle school, it shouldn't count damn it!

Oh yeah, I lost my job during the recession too and my neighbourhood was badly affect by it :'( The late 2000s sucked lol.

I'm telling ya, the early '10s was the true GOAT.


Honestly, I thought you were Eric's (Eazy-EMan1995) age, since it seemed you like most early 2000s kid stuff.


I'm telling y'all that '90ers are partial early 2000s kids. None of you believe me >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 1:59 pm


Honestly, I thought you were Eric's (Eazy-EMan1995) age, since it seemed you like most early 2000s kid stuff.


Well I only mentioned 2000s stuff in the 2000s section or when the topic is brought up. And also because the 2000s had some of my most favorite personal life moments and great pop culture. Besides the early 2000s I love the late 1990s. 1996-2003 is where my nostalgia tends to be.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 2:04 pm


We all do embarrassing things in middle school, it shouldn't count damn it!

Oh yeah, I lost my job during the recession too and my neighbourhood was badly affect by it :'( The late 2000s sucked lol.

I'm telling ya, the early '10s was the true GOAT.

HA! You say that as if we don't do embarrassing things in high school. My high school years had some many embarrassing moments that I always try to forget.

For me since I turned 18 and didn't have the college money it was very frustrating to and move forward. Good thing my cousin helped me out in my time of need.

Early 2010s was pretty GOAT. I mainly liked it for the upbeat vibe within the pop culture.


I'm telling y'all that '90ers are partial early 2000s kids. None of you believe me >:(


For some reason I can't quite argue with this. Now I was 5-10 in '95-'00 which makes me a late 90's kid, but my late childhood was mainly in the early 2000s if you wanna count it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/29/16 at 2:16 pm


Well I only mentioned 2000s stuff in the 2000s section or when the topic is brought up. And also because the 2000s had some of my most favorite personal life moments and great pop culture. Besides the early 2000s I love the late 1990s. 1996-2003 is where my nostalgia tends to be.


Well, at least I was close on what were you nostalgic for.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/29/16 at 2:18 pm


HA! You say that as if we don't do embarrassing things in high school. My high school years had some many embarrassing moments that I always try to forget.

For me since I turned 18 and didn't have the college money it was very frustrating to and move forward. Good thing my cousin helped me out in my time of need.

Early 2010s was pretty GOAT. I mainly liked it for the upbeat vibe within the pop culture.

For some reason I can't quite argue with this. Now I was 5-10 in '95-'00 which makes me a late 90's kid, but my late childhood was mainly in the early 2000s if you wanna count it.


But at least in high school you choose to do embarrassing things. In middle school, it's the peer pressure that forces you to do embarrassing things. :[

Damn, that's awful. I'm happy for you that you got through that. It's crazy how many people the recession screwed over. My best friend is working two jobs while putting himself through university; his dad losing his job was a huge income drop for his family. :(

There were a lot of kids born 1990 in my childhood neighbourhood, and they pretty much grew up with me as I see it, so I always saw everybody born in the early '90s as late 90s/early 2000s kids to different extents ;D That's probably because I went to a K-8 school though. The Grade 6/7ers didn't have a problem playing with us 4th/5th graders in the playground.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 2:19 pm


Well, at least I was close on what were you nostalgic for.


Ages 5 - 15 (1995-2005) were the best moments of my life. Then from 16-19 it sucked until 20+ when things got better.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/29/16 at 2:25 pm


Ages 5 - 15 (1995-2005) were the best moments of my life. Then from 16-19 it sucked until 20+ when things got better.


Eh. 2005 was mainly my favorite year for my childhood, since it had pretty much anything that I liked. Except for YouTube.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/29/16 at 2:31 pm


Ages 5 - 15 (1995-2005) were the best moments of my life. Then from 16-19 it sucked until 20+ when things got better.


Any particular reason for 16?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/29/16 at 2:41 pm


But at least in high school you choose to do embarrassing things. In middle school, it's the peer pressure that forces you to do embarrassing things. :
Eh. 2005 was mainly my favorite year for my childhood, since it had pretty much anything that I liked. Except for YouTube.


2005 was a good time for me in both personal life and in pop culture, I think. I even have a few late 2000s good memories. In pop culture there was a decent amount to enjoy. The thing that disappointed me was my personal life. And 2005 Youtube was just weird. I didn't fully get into Youtube until around 2007.


Any particular reason for 16?


I just never cared for 2006 (when I turned 16). Everything was bland and boring to me. From my personal life to pop culture (and in think it was when I lost my girlfriend to some jerk >:( ). Now it wasn't a COMPLETELY bad year for me, but it wasn't anything memorable either for me. But this is all just from my point of view. Others may have had a better time than I did.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/29/16 at 5:09 pm


2005 was a good time for me in both personal life and in pop culture, I think. I even have a few late 2000s good memories. In pop culture there was a decent amount to enjoy. The thing that disappointed me was my personal life. And 2005 Youtube was just weird. I didn't fully get into Youtube until around 2007.


I pretty much thought 2005 YouTube was just pretty boring to start off. It wasn't really that enjoyable until 2006/2007. But I got into the site during the summer of 2007, right after I became interested with it. I don't remember the first time I've been on YouTube, but it was really cool when I saw it.


I just never cared for 2006 (when I turned 16). Everything was bland and boring to me. From my personal life to pop culture (and in think it was when I lost my girlfriend to some jerk >:( ). Now it wasn't a COMPLETELY bad year for me, but it wasn't anything memorable either for me. But this is all just from my point of view. Others may have had a better time than I did.


I think it was just the opposite for me, but it was only late 2006 that just seemed boring. Not the entire year, since I really pleasant times during the second half of the 2005-06 school year. After the summer of 2006, things just pretty much became forgettable until early 2007. I could remember my 7th birthday, but that's pretty much about it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 07/29/16 at 5:26 pm



I wonder what it's like to have a K-8 school. In Florida I we just have a K-5 school. A 6-8 school. And a 9-12 school. I can relate to people who're within 3 years of my birth date.



K-8 is common in many private schools, especially parochial ones (that is, schools tied to a church; I went to such a school from kindergarten thru second grade). From what I understand, the upper grades are treated just like standard elementary grades (that is, through 5th); attendees don't get the actual junior high/middle school experience (ie, they stay with one teacher all day for general subjects; no periods, like you have in an actual secondary school).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/29/16 at 5:40 pm


That's even worse. The fact that high schoolers CHOOSE to do embarrassing things shows that we sometimes get dumber with age. With middle schoolers since they don't know any better I can understand why they'd do something embarrassing. By high school the person would already be experienced with embarrassment yet do crazy stuff anyways.

Yeah, I can see why the early 2010s was so upbeat. After the recession ended people's attitude were becoming more positive. I like 2010-2013.

I wonder what it's like to have a K-8 school. In Florida I we just have a K-5 school. A 6-8 school. And a 9-12 school. I can relate to people who're within 3 years of my birth date.

2005 was a good time for me in both personal life and in pop culture, I think. I even have a few late 2000s good memories. In pop culture there was a decent amount to enjoy. The thing that disappointed me was my personal life. And 2005 Youtube was just weird. I didn't fully get into Youtube until around 2007.

I just never cared for 2006 (when I turned 16). Everything was bland and boring to me. From my personal life to pop culture (and in think it was when I lost my girlfriend to some jerk >:( ). Now it wasn't a COMPLETELY bad year for me, but it wasn't anything memorable either for me. But this is all just from my point of view. Others may have had a better time than I did.


Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You can't blame me for listening to listening to MCR in middle school, it was the peer pressure. :P

Black Parade came out when I was in Grade 9, which was when I got into MCR. *hides*

I went to a dedicated middle school when I moved in Grade 7, but was in a K-8 school when I was Grade 6. The latter environment was much better as I saw it. I didn't notice any difference as I went from Grade 5 to 6 other than regular puberty/adoloscence, my childhood was still ongoing as far I was concerned. I went to a regular middle school in Grade 7 and that environment was very different. Kids tried too hard to act "mature". You had to get the PSP, buy the latest GTA, listen to the latest 50-Cent, start cussing and having sex and doing drugs, because that's what "mature" people do. It was too try-hard.

LOL the girlfriend thing made me laugh, I don't know why ;D 2006 was trash in more ways than one.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/29/16 at 5:45 pm


K-8 is common in many private schools, especially parochial ones (that is, schools tied to a church; I went to such a school from kindergarten thru second grade). From what I understand, the upper grades are treated just like standard elementary grades (that is, through 5th); attendees don't get the actual junior high/middle school experience (ie, they stay with one teacher all day for general subjects; no periods, like you have in an actual secondary school).


I think in my province, Ontario, K-8 is the norm for public schools, except in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), where it's K-5 with separate middle schools. I'm not in the TDSB anymore, and my 10 year old sisters are going into Grade 6 next year in their K-8 school.

The difference between Grade 6-8 and Grade 5 was that in Grade 6-8 you had different teachers for different subjects, while in Grade 5 you had the one homeroom teacher. Unlike in my dedicated middle school though, I didn't have to move between different classrooms for different subjects, I stayed in the one room.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 07/29/16 at 9:34 pm


If they were born in 1998, then how could they remember most of the shows that aired on Cartoon Network in the early 2000s? Unless they had Boomerang as a kid.


You were born in 1999 and you remember all that stuff, don't you?


Not sure how I gave off the idea that I was born in '98.  ???


You didn't, I just assume all you guys are really young.  ;)

But f*ck, you and Zelek, 1990 borns, are pushing 30! Jesus! 


Man, it seems everyone was having a crazy time trying to guess my age.  :o You guys could've just PM asked me or something.  ;D


I asked you in a forum post and you never replied! I remembered somebody saying you were born in 1989 so I asked but nope. Ignore my questions. >:(


HA! You say that as if we don't do embarrassing things in high school. My high school years had some many embarrassing moments that I always try to forget.


I wear my teenage embarrassment as a badge of honor. 8)


I just never cared for 2006 (when I turned 16). Everything was bland and boring to me. From my personal life to pop culture (and in think it was when I lost my girlfriend to some jerk >:( ). Now it wasn't a COMPLETELY bad year for me, but it wasn't anything memorable either for me. But this is all just from my point of view. Others may have had a better time than I did.


Yeah, when I was in middle school this chick dumped me because I was a "dork". >:( Same god damn year that other chick threw a sandwich at me, too...

Still love 1995, however. That's when I got my first Alien Workshop deck! 8)


LOL the girlfriend thing made me laugh, I don't know why ;D 2006 was trash in more ways than one.


Why do you laugh at the suffering of others! >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ralfy on 07/29/16 at 9:49 pm

Likely, views are partly dependent on combinations sociological and economic factors, such as world wars, prosperity driven heavily by debt, economic crisis, etc. The implication, then, is that definitions will vary even across various regions.

Given that, a more logical approach is use twenty-year periods, as I explained elsewhere, i.e., 1941 to 1960 for boomers, 1961 to 1980 for Xers, 1981 to 2000 for Y, and so forth. This will likely apply only to the global middle class and rich. For most, definitions might be connected to economic conditions, e.g., the start of an economic boom in Europe and Japan during the 1960s, a decade of depression during the '80s, the rise of emerging markets during the '80s and '90s, and so forth.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/29/16 at 10:24 pm


Wow if pansy millennial are those who were in high school 2004-2008, then he's peak pansy.
I know it's a joke and all, but can we please stop calling each other pansy Millennials? Not everyone in this generation is a wussy. ;D :D


I wonder what it's like to have a K-8 school. In Florida I we just have a K-5 school. A 6-8 school. And a 9-12 school. I can relate to people who're within 3 years of my birth date.



K-8 is common in many private schools, especially parochial ones (that is, schools tied to a church; I went to such a school from kindergarten thru second grade). From what I understand, the upper grades are treated just like standard elementary grades (that is, through 5th); attendees don't get the actual junior high/middle school experience (ie, they stay with one teacher all day for general subjects; no periods, like you have in an actual secondary school).



I think in my province, Ontario, K-8 is the norm for public schools, except in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), where it's K-5 with separate middle schools. I'm not in the TDSB anymore, and my 10 year old sisters are going into Grade 6 next year in their K-8 school.

The difference between Grade 6-8 and Grade 5 was that in Grade 6-8 you had different teachers for different subjects, while in Grade 5 you had the one homeroom teacher. Unlike in my dedicated middle school though, I didn't have to move between different classrooms for different subjects, I stayed in the one room.
There's also K-4, 5-8 and 9-12 in some school districts around the country. I can definitely see a 10 year old having a different experience being in middle school in the 5th grade instead of elementary.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/29/16 at 10:41 pm


WTF, Toon's born in 1990!? First Zelek, now you. I keep thinking all you guys are born in 1998 or something.
how many members here do you think were born in 1998? I'm just curious.


Not using specific beginning and end points makes things a tad easier. I can get behind the idea of Plurals mostly being under 18 as saying that they're mainly 20+ in age doesn't make sense. But saying that it starts in 199X or 200X doesn't work as well. Saying things like "This gen generally consists of those within their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, or 60s" works better.
I know what you mean. Plurals are children and adolescents.  Millennials are in their 20s and 30s. Gen X is in their 40s and 50s and so on.


But at least in high school you choose to do embarrassing things. In middle school, it's the peer pressure that forces you to do embarrassing things.

There were a lot of kids born 1990 in my childhood neighbourhood, and they pretty much grew up with me as I see it, so I always saw everybody born in the early '90s as late 90s/early 2000s kids to different extents ;D That's probably because I went to a K-8 school though. The Grade 6/7ers didn't have a problem playing with us 4th/5th graders in the playground.
Not for me it wasn't.  I did plenty of embarrassing things in MS and HS without the use of peer pressure.

Same here. I have many 1990 (and some 1989) friends, and I can relate to them very well. I pretty much grew up with the same things they did.


But f*ck, you and Zelek, 1990 borns, are pushing 30! Jesus! 
I know right? They were just 20 a few years ago and they're now 4 years away from 30. :o It's crazy! Another thing to think about is that the rest of the older 90s babies are now pushing 25 or that some are already that age. Damn, time goes fast!!!!!! In the next few years, we'll be pushing 30!! ;D :D :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/29/16 at 11:20 pm


I went to a dedicated middle school when I moved in Grade 7, but was in a K-8 school when I was Grade 6. The latter environment was much better as I saw it. I didn't notice any difference as I went from Grade 5 to 6 other than regular puberty/adoloscence, my childhood was still ongoing as far I was concerned. I went to a regular middle school in Grade 7 and that environment was very different. Kids tried too hard to act "mature". You had to get the PSP, buy the latest GTA, listen to the latest 50-Cent, start cussing and having sex and doing drugs, because that's what "mature" people do. It was too try-hard.


That's a really solid description of what it's like to make the transition from elementary to middle school. For me, that happened in 6th grade. It's like, one minute you're in 5th grade still going out onto the playground for recess every afternoon and then, suddenly the next fall, you're talking about girls, violent video games and rap music all the time.

It was even worse for me because Columbine happened during the very same school year that I started middle school. Going to school never felt quite the same after that. Needless to say, that killed off whatever residue was still remaining from my "innocent" childhood years overnight.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/29/16 at 11:40 pm



Yeah, when I was in middle school this chick dumped me because I was a "dork". >:( Same god damn year that other chick threw a sandwich at me, too...

Still love 1995, however. That's when I got my first Alien Workshop deck! 8)

Why do you laugh at the suffering of others! >:(


LOL that's funny too. ;D


I know it's a joke and all, but can we please stop calling each other pansy Millennials? Not everyone in this generation is a wussy. ;D :D.


It's an inthe00s meme now.


That's a really solid description of what it's like to make the transition from elementary to middle school. For me, that happened in 6th grade. It's like, one minute you're in 5th grade still going out onto the playground for recess every afternoon and then, suddenly the next fall, you're talking about girls, violent video games and rap music all the time.

It was even worse for me because Columbine happened during the very same school year that I started middle school. Going to school never felt quite the same after that. Needless to say, that killed off whatever residue was still remaining from my "innocent" childhood years overnight.


Glad to know it wasn't me being a late bloomer lol. Whose idea was it to isolate 11-14 year olds in the same building?  :-\\

Did Columbine scare you because you were still a kid, or did you really think that could happen in your school? :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/29/16 at 11:54 pm


Did Columbine scare you because you were still a kid, or did you really think that could happen in your school? :o


Oh, I absolutely thought that it could happen in my school. Though, admittedly, that might've had something to do with the fact that I was still a kid, and didn't fully appreciate just how rare something like that was.

I know that there had been many school shootings before 1999, but they tended to be more local events that didn't get nearly as much national media coverage. Honestly, until Columbine happened, the thought that a student would take a gun to school and start mowing down his classmates had never once occurred to me. That was a big part of what made it so shocking. I know that sounds really naive now, but it shows just how big of a wake up call that event was back then.

Sort of like how no one would have ever thought that somebody would actually crash a plane into a skyscraper. Man, the Y2K era was a really scary time to grow up in looking back! :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/30/16 at 12:08 am


It's an inthe00s meme now.
Only because Early90sGuy made it happen when he decided to say that this generation was full of pansies, which is not ;D ::).


Oh, I absolutely thought that it could happen in my school. Though, admittedly, that might've had something to do with the fact that I was still a kid, and didn't fully appreciate just how rare something like that was.

I know that there had been many school shootings before 1999, but they tended to be more local events that didn't get nearly as much national media coverage. Honestly, until Columbine happened, the thought that a student would take a gun to school and start mowing down his classmates had never once occurred to me. That was a big part of what made it so shocking. I know that sounds really naive now, but it shows just how big of a wake up call that event was back then.

Sort of like how no one would have ever thought that somebody would actually crash a plane into a skyscraper. Man, the Y2K era was a really scary time to grow up in looking back! :o
Comparing that time-frame to right now makes the Y2K era look much better despite 9/11 and the Columbine Shooting. Everywhere today, either a shooting is taking place or it's a bombing attack. It's like we're not even safe anywhere despite stats saying crime is declining globally. I'm aware both of these things happened long before the 2010s, but they didn't occur a daily basis like now.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/30/16 at 12:35 am


I know it's a joke and all, but can we please stop calling each other pansy Millennials? Not everyone in this generation is a wussy. ;D :D
There's also K-4, 5-8 and 9-12 in some school districts around the country. I can definitely see a 10 year old having a different experience being in middle school in the 5th grade instead of elementary.


A middle school kid could be as young as 9 years old, if they went to a K-4 elementary school/5-8 middle school AND didn't have a September cutoff with their birthday being around September-December.

But then of course, a Kindergartener could be as old as 7 years old if they started school late or got held back.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/30/16 at 12:41 am


A middle school kid could be as young as 9 years old, if they went to a K-4 elementary school/5-8 middle school AND didn't have a September cutoff with their birthday being around September-December.

But then of course, a Kindergartener could be as old as 7 years old if they started school late or got held back.
You're right about that! I actually knew a few people who were in kindergarten at 7, but that's because their birthday was between January and May, and they were held back for other reasons.

As for the 5-8 middle school environment, there is a member on here who stated he attended one like that which would have made him 10 years old when he began.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/30/16 at 12:45 am

Reading Markese and machine's comments really interested me.
Cause growing up I ALWAYS viewed the millennium era as the most kiddiest time EVER!
For example; Disney,Pixar, N64, wrestling, teen pop, boy bands, coloring books, play dough, economic prosperity, Pokemon, sailor moon, Digimon, Recess, Arthur, Telitubbies, Reading Rainbow, Bear in the Big Blue House.

I never realized how crazy things were starting to become. Columbine shooting, Y2k scare, video games becoming more violent, Lewinsky Scandal, homopobia, bubble bust, uncertainty for the future of america etc. I realize it was my age talking the entire time. Man being a teen boy during that time must have been hectic. I realize now that times were changing from the innocent and carfree years to slightly more serious times. I wonder how I would have felt had I been my age then.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/30/16 at 12:55 am


Reading Markese and machine's comments really interested me.
Cause growing up I ALWAYS viewed the millennium era as the most kiddiest time EVER!
For example; Disney,Pixar, N64, wrestling, teen pop, boy bands, coloring books, play dough, economic prosperity, Pokemon, sailor moon, Digimon, Recess, Arthur, Telitubbies, Reading Rainbow, Bear in the Big Blue House.

I never realized how crazy things were starting to become. Columbine shooting, Y2k scare, video games becoming more violent, Lewinsky Scandal, homopobia, bubble bust, uncertainty for the future of america etc. I realize it was my age talking the entire time. Man being a teen boy during that time must have been hectic. I realize now that times were changing from the innocent and carfree years to slightly more serious times. I wonder how I would have felt had I been my age then.
I know man. It's crazy. I actually watched the news back then, and that era it had its own share of terrible events; however, that's nothing compared to today. 9/11 and Columbine were just a warm up while today it's peaking from left to right. I can't go one day without seeing a horrific event happening. Right now, it's much more darker than the Y2K era ever was.

As for how you would have felt at that age, well that depends. Some events take a huge toll on people while some others, not as much. Jordan already said that 9/11 didn't affect him nearly as much as some others and he was around your age at the time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/30/16 at 1:03 am


Jordan was way older than Eric on 9/11! ;D
Right, but Eric was saying how would he have felt had he been Jordan's age or older when those events took place?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 07/30/16 at 1:11 am


Reading Markese and machine's comments really interested me.
Cause growing up I ALWAYS viewed the millennium era as the most kiddiest time EVER!
For example; Disney,Pixar, N64, wrestling, teen pop, boy bands, coloring books, play dough, economic prosperity, Pokemon, sailor moon, Digimon, Recess, Arthur, Telitubbies, Reading Rainbow, Bear in the Big Blue House.

I never realized how crazy things were starting to become. Columbine shooting, Y2k scare, video games becoming more violent, Lewinsky Scandal, homopobia, bubble bust, uncertainty for the future of america etc. I realize it was my age talking the entire time. Man being a teen boy during that time must have been hectic. I realize now that times were changing from the innocent and carfree years to slightly more serious times. I wonder how I would have felt had I been my age then.


That's the same contrast I felt about 1996 during my early childhood versus my late childhood and adolescence. At first, this was the only kind of stuff that sprung to my head when the year was mentioned:

http://www.cdaccess.com/gifs/shared/front/large/toyland.gif

http://gameluster.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Super-Mario-64.jpg

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/514ZC7V869L.jpg

https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w342/zuCyg83BcuKUtT2EfDTLbxrOwhp.jpg

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/jstart/images/e/ef/6136cJUiDKL.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150712054938

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/arthur/images/d/db/Arthur_s16_title_for_main_page.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131002214809

Then I began outgrowing my childhood, and I learnt about the more adult, mature culture from the year 1996, and suddenly these types of images began popping in my head instead when the year was brought up:

https://i1.imgiz.com/rshots/7513/2pac-feat-dr-dre-california-love_7513266-8763_1280x720.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Reasonable_Doubt_New.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Aenima.jpg

http://static.djbooth.net/pics-features/tupac-death-1996.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Resident_Evil_1_cover.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/Primal_Fear_(1996_film)_poster.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Soundgarden-DownOnTheUpside.jpg

http://static.nme.com/images/thescore2.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/Sheryl_Crow,_album.png

It's truly amazing how years that you remember from your early childhood can change so drastically in tone when you grow old enough to learn about the culture from them that you were too young to experience back at the time. As a little kid, there was no other year that seemed as tykey as 1996. Now, on the other hand, I feel there has never been a year that looks and seems nearly as dark, scroungy, glum, and gritty since 1996. After popular culture got extremely cheesy and began targeting millennials in 1997, things have never been quite the same, not even during the darkest periods for global events.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 07/30/16 at 9:41 am


Question for you, Toon: do you consider mqg (b. 1996) and Eric (b. 1995) the same generation as you, or the beginning of Plurals?


For what it's worth, I do believe that both of them are in the same "generation" as me. Even though I'm quite a bit older than them, I do feel that we share certain commonalities. I watched Cartoon Network as a young teen in the early '00s just like they did as little kids, and I liked Pokemon as a young teen in the early '00s just like they did as little kids. They probably first began to get into music as preteens in the mid '00s which was when I was at my height of being into the current Top 40 scene. We also did at least share a handfull of years together as young adults in the "Obama era'.

Bottom line, I feel pretty comfortable saying '95ers and '96ers are in the same generation as later '80s babies, though right on the edge. Anything younger than that, though, and it really does start feeling like a different cohort.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/30/16 at 9:53 am



You didn't, I just assume all you guys are really young.  ;)

But f*ck, you and Zelek, 1990 borns, are pushing 30! Jesus! 

I asked you in a forum post and you never replied! I remembered somebody saying you were born in 1989 so I asked but nope. Ignore my questions. >:(


Oops. I didn't even know you asked. I probably missed them as there have been times where someone replies to my posts, but I don't notice. Or maybe I do notice and I just forget to reply.  ;D You see I have a potato in the place that my brain should be.


I wear my teenage embarrassment as a badge of honor. 8)

Yeah, when I was in middle school this chick dumped me because I was a "dork". >:( Same god damn year that other chick threw a sandwich at me, too...


It's safe to say that the teenage years are some of the more questionable moments of a person's life. It's just funny to look back and hindsight and say "what was I thinking when I did that?". When you're 15 or 16 you'd do something crazy and think that what you just did was awesome. About 5-10 years later you look back in shame and pray that you never do it again.

Also some lady dumped you because you were a dork? Pffftttt ALL TEENAGERS ARE DORKS. From the wimpy nerds to the try-hard wannabe jocks. They're all dorks to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 07/30/16 at 9:57 am

Personally, I liked my preteens and I have surprisingly few regrets from then because I was that one kid who had an advanced vocabulary and knew lots of facts. However, in my teens, I became semi-stupid (In that I fooled myself that I was a shallow clone of everyone else, but hints of the real me shone through every now and then,) because of peer pressure.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 07/30/16 at 10:01 am


For what it's worth, I do believe that both of them are in the same "generation" as me. Even though I'm quite a bit older than them, I do feel that we share certain commonalities. I watched Cartoon Network as a young teen in the early '00s just like they did as little kids, and I liked Pokemon as a young teen in the early '00s just like they did as little kids. They probably first began to get into music as preteens in the mid '00s which was when I was at my height of being into the current Top 40 scene. We also did at least share a handfull of years together as young adults in the "Obama era'.

Bottom line, I feel pretty comfortable saying '95ers and '96ers are in the same generation as later '80s babies, though right on the edge. Anything younger than that, though, and it really does start feeling like a different cohort.


Yeah, I thought the same thing. Everything that millennials enjoyed and everything within millennial culture those from 95/96 grew up with. By the time the millennial culture faded they were already 18+. From childhood to teen to adult everything that influenced them would've been within millennial culture. The things that I was interested in as a teen they saw as a kid. Sure we were in different ages, but we experienced the exact same age which is what happens in a generation. The early millennials experience millennial culture from as mainly adults. Core millennials experienced them as teens to adults. And late millennials experienced them as kids to teens. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 07/30/16 at 12:11 pm




The difference between Grade 6-8 and Grade 5 was that in Grade 6-8 you had different teachers for different subjects, while in Grade 5 you had the one homeroom teacher. Unlike in my dedicated middle school though, I didn't have to move between different classrooms for different subjects, I stayed in the one room.

That's right... and by the way, 5th grade has always been an elementary grade in U.S., as far as I can remember. It's just that elementary school used to consist of K thru 6, junior high was 7 thru 9, and high school was 10 thru 12; this was how it used to be until the early 90's; in 1992 some schools made the transition and most all of them did so by '95 or so. That is, they reconfigured the lineup so that grade 6 was moved to junior high (renamed "middle school," altho the terms were used interchangeably) and grade 9 moved to high school.
For me when I was in 6th grade, it was still elementary (1991-92) and when I got into 7th grade, that school also had reconfigured to 6-7-8 and was hence a middle school. (It had been 7-8-9 through 1991-92.)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 07/30/16 at 12:13 pm


A middle school kid could be as young as 9 years old, if they went to a K-4 elementary school/5-8 middle school AND didn't have a September cutoff with their birthday being around September-December.

But then of course, a Kindergartener could be as old as 7 years old if they started school late or got held back.

...which means they'd be up to 19 when graduating from high school. :o (That is, if they don't get held back anymore.)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 07/31/16 at 12:37 am


how many members here do you think were born in 1998? I'm just curious.


Nobody. I just assume you guys are super young until you actually reveal your age. I don't get half the sh!t you guys talk about sometimes.


LOL that's funny too. ;D


I... I don't know what to say... It most certainly was not very funny for me at the time!


Only because Early90sGuy made it happen when he decided to say that this generation was full of pansies, which is not ;D ::).


Everyone sucks if they're born after 1982. ;) ;D


I know man. It's crazy. I actually watched the news back then, and that era it had its own share of terrible events; however, that's nothing compared to today. 9/11 and Columbine were just a warm up while today it's peaking from left to right. I can't go one day without seeing a horrific event happening. Right now, it's much more darker than the Y2K era ever was.

As for how you would have felt at that age, well that depends. Some events take a huge toll on people while some others, not as much. Jordan already said that 9/11 didn't affect him nearly as much as some others and he was around your age at the time.


Reading Markese and machine's comments really interested me.
Cause growing up I ALWAYS viewed the millennium era as the most kiddiest time EVER!
For example; Disney,Pixar, N64, wrestling, teen pop, boy bands, coloring books, play dough, economic prosperity, Pokemon, sailor moon, Digimon, Recess, Arthur, Telitubbies, Reading Rainbow, Bear in the Big Blue House.

I never realized how crazy things were starting to become. Columbine shooting, Y2k scare, video games becoming more violent, Lewinsky Scandal, homopobia, bubble bust, uncertainty for the future of america etc. I realize it was my age talking the entire time. Man being a teen boy during that time must have been hectic. I realize now that times were changing from the innocent and carfree years to slightly more serious times. I wonder how I would have felt had I been my age then.


I wasn't afraid of anything back then and I'm still not today. Growing up back then was cool.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 07/31/16 at 2:42 am

I'm still undecided if the last year for Millennials is 2000 or 2004.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 07/31/16 at 10:03 am


I'm still undecided if the last year for Millennials is 2000 or 2004.

I'd go with 2000.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/31/16 at 10:11 am


I'm still undecided if the last year for Millennials is 2000 or 2004.


2000, without a doubt. There's no way that 2004 babies could be Millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/31/16 at 12:11 pm


2000, without a doubt. There's no way that 2004 babies could be Millennials.


To play Devil's advocate, 2004 and 2005 babies vaguely remember a world before smartphones and iPads, and social media completely taking over, which seems to be the reasons I see people including 1999/2000 borns as millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/31/16 at 12:44 pm


To play Devil's advocate, 2004 and 2005 babies vaguely remember a world before smartphones and iPads, and social media completely taking over, which seems to be the reasons I see people including 1999/2000 borns as millennials.


For somebody who liked the early 2010s so much, when did you think smartphones and iPads took over?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/31/16 at 1:24 pm


For somebody who liked the early 2010s so much, when did you think smartphones and iPads took over?


Smartphones overtook non-smartphones in marketshare in late 2011. I don't remember tablets being a huge deal until late 2012/early 2013 when Windows 8 and Android tablets also came out to compete with it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/31/16 at 1:36 pm


Smartphones overtook non-smartphones in marketshare in late 2011. I don't remember tablets being a huge deal until late 2012/early 2013 when Windows 8 and Android tablets also came out to compete with it.


Well, I thought it seemed kinda different in Canada, but it seems the same like in the United States.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/31/16 at 2:05 pm


Well, I thought it seemed kinda different in Canada, but it seems the same like in the United States.


My sisters didn't get an iPad until late 2013, so they were already 8 when they got it. From 5-7 they didn't have Netflix, iPads or Spotify etc. It was the same environment as my childhood in the mid 2000s.

I bought my smartphone in late 2010, so that would have been their first exposure to it, but they were still mostly exposed to my mom's camera flip phone and my dad's PDA. It wasn't until late 2012 that my mom switched over to a smartphone. I remember in Halloween 2012 when my friends crashed over at my place coming back from horror camp, they baited my sisters with their iPhone games. They were so fascinated by it, they couldn't let go of it ;D so yeah, I'd say they remember a time before smartphones were ubiquitous.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/31/16 at 2:22 pm


My sisters didn't get an iPad until late 2013, so they were already 8 when they got it. From 5-7 they didn't have Netflix, iPads or Spotify etc. It was the same environment as my childhood in the mid 2000s.

I bought my smartphone in late 2010, so that would have been their first exposure to it, but they were still mostly exposed to my mom's camera flip phone and my dad's PDA. It wasn't until late 2012 that my mom switched over to a smartphone. I remember in Halloween 2012 when my friends crashed over at my place coming back from horror camp, they baited my sisters with their iPhone games. They were so fascinated by it, they couldn't let go of it ;D so yeah, I'd say they remember a time before smartphones were ubiquitous.


Heh. I thought most mid 2000s babies barely remember a time before smartphones and tablets took over. Turns out I was wrong. I think it's like the same to me here in the United States. I was about 11 when I got my first iPad, especially with getting tons of apps for it. I didn't really use it that much, since I was more occupied with my computer. Even with my newer iPad, I still prefer using my desktop computer. However, I didn't really see a lot of iPads being used until 2012/13. So, it's like the same for your country. Especially when we both live in North America.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Willmisses2004 on 07/31/16 at 2:44 pm


2000, without a doubt. There's no way that 2004 babies could be Millennials.
Well, here is how I say it.
1982: First millennials: Graduated in 2000 which is in the first decade of the third millennium.....the 2000s
2004: Last millennials: Started Kindergarten in 2009 which is the last year of the first decade of the third millennium......the 2000s. But I can see why 2000 is the last birth year because go to that famousbirthdays site and everyone born from 1982-1999 is an actor, singer, writer, dancer, artist, director,  Then go to everyone born from 2000-2005........ Musical.ly stars and Vine stars lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/31/16 at 3:05 pm


Well, here is how I say it.
1982: First millennials: Graduated in 2000 which is in the first decade of the third millennium.....the 2000s
2004: Last millennials: Started Kindergarten in 2009 which is the last year of the first decade of the third millennium......the 2000s. But I can see why 2000 is the last birth year because go to that famousbirthdays site and everyone born from 1982-1999 is an actor, singer, writer, dancer, artist, director,  Then go to everyone born from 2000-2005........ Musical.ly stars and Vine stars lol.


I basically don't see 2000 babies as Musical.ly stars, since they aren't that obsessed with their smartphones. Unlike 2001-2004 babies, who are fascinated with having a damn smartphone so they get a Musical.ly profile. It's sad because those kids could be easily seen by predators, who find girls their age very attractive and have sexual desires with them.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Willmisses2004 on 07/31/16 at 3:27 pm


I basically don't see 2000 babies as Musical.ly stars, since they aren't that obsessed with their smartphones. Unlike 2001-2004 babies, who are fascinated with having a damn smartphone so they get a Musical.ly profile. It's sad because those kids could be easily seen by predators, who find girls their age very attractive and have sexual desires with them.
I know right. But about 2000 babies having musical.ly I'll give you a list of the most popular 2000 babies having Vine/Musical.ly ......... Baby ariel, Hayes Grier (feel better soon), Zach Clayton, Theylovearii (Don't look it up for safety), and Bryce Hall.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/31/16 at 3:43 pm


I know right. But about 2000 babies having musical.ly I'll give you a list of the most popular 2000 babies having Vine/Musical.ly ......... Baby ariel, Hayes Grier (feel better soon), Zach Clayton, Theylovearii (Don't look it up for safety), and Bryce Hall.


Well, it's not like I'll look them up since they'll might grow out of it soon. I mean, it's not like they'll use musical.ly as legal adults, unless they just want to 14-16 mentally for the rest of their lives.  :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Willmisses2004 on 07/31/16 at 4:00 pm

I'm sure all of them will grow out of it except "Arii" she's done some pretty bad stuff for a 15-16 year old.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/31/16 at 4:03 pm


I'm sure all of them will grow out of it except "Arii" she's done some pretty bad stuff for a 15-16 year old.


Arii seems mature, but maybe she'll be one of the only adult stars of Musical.ly.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 07/31/16 at 4:14 pm


My sisters didn't get an iPad until late 2013, so they were already 8 when they got it. From 5-7 they didn't have Netflix, iPads or Spotify etc. It was the same environment as my childhood in the mid 2000s.


What do you mean by same environment as the mid 2000's!?  ???

No way the mid 2000's was similar to the early 2010's when it came to the pop culture and environment. 2006 being related to 2010 could be the only closest comparison, but not 2004 & 2005 though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/31/16 at 4:27 pm


What do you mean by same environment as the mid 2000's!?  ???

No way the mid 2000's was similar to the early 2010's when it came to the pop culture and environment. 2006 being related to 2010 could be the only closest comparison, but not 2004 & 2005 though.


I guess it's kinda different in Canada. I mean, they did got Justin Bieber more popular in the late 2000s, before Americans heard of it in 2010. But I agree, there's no way in hell that 2004 and 2005 was similar to 2010. I could recall TONS of stuff that were around during 2004-2006, of which it was barely anywhere to see in 2010.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/31/16 at 4:35 pm


What do you mean by same environment as the mid 2000's!?  ???

No way the mid 2000's was similar to the early 2010's when it came to the pop culture and environment. 2006 being related to 2010 could be the only closest comparison, but not 2004 & 2005 though.


I mean general lifestyle. Watching TV by waiting for the show to come on (no Netflix), going on the Internet to listen to music and watching funny videos (Broadband Internet) etc. Lifestyle wise, it was the same. I'm not talking about TV shows lol.

In 2003 I got broadband Internet. Before that, I barely went on the Internet, maybe a few times a week to check cheat codes and send emails to my dad while he's at work or something lol. After that, other than MSN and some Web 1.0, my childhood wasn't all that different from early Zers, especially in 2004 when RuneScape took off.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/31/16 at 6:10 pm


I mean general lifestyle. Watching TV by waiting for the show to come on (no Netflix), going on the Internet to listen to music and watching funny videos (Broadband Internet) etc. Lifestyle wise, it was the same. I'm not talking about TV shows lol.


That was like my childhood before I discovered YouTube in 2007. Although, I used the Internet to go on Nickelodeon, Disney, and Discovery Kids' websites. Along with playing all of those cool flash games back then. Those were the times.  :)


In 2003 I got broadband Internet. Before that, I barely went on the Internet, maybe a few times a week to check cheat codes and send emails to my dad while he's at work or something lol. After that, other than MSN and some Web 1.0, my childhood wasn't all that different from early Zers, especially in 2004 when RuneScape took off.


Eh. I mostly just watched TV at the time during the mid 2000s. Although, I was really addicted towards the Internet, I was more attracted to my family's TV. It wasn't until I discovered YouTube, where I loved going through the Internet by then.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 07/31/16 at 6:37 pm


That was like my childhood before I discovered YouTube in 2007. Although, I used the Internet to go on Nickelodeon, Disney, and Discovery Kids' websites. Along with playing all of those cool flash games back then. Those were the times.  :)

Eh. I mostly just watched TV at the time during the mid 2000s. Although, I was really addicted towards the Internet, I was more attracted to my family's TV. It wasn't until I discovered YouTube, where I loved going through the Internet by then.


Haha YouTube. One way I know people born in the mid-2000s are 100% Gen Z is when we went to our uncle's house, he has a lot of trophies for an elementary school basketball team he used to coach in the 90s/early 2000s. My sister was so fascinated by this, she asked what the school's name was, so she can watch the basketball games and my uncle on YouTube ;D

I'm like "Kid, there was no YouTube in 1997", and she insisted "But everything is on YouTube, someone must have uploaded it!", and me "I doubt anyone even recorded it." ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 07/31/16 at 6:47 pm


Haha YouTube. One way I know people born in the mid-2000s are 100% Gen Z is when we went to our uncle's house, he has a lot of trophies for an elementary school basketball team he used to coach in the 90s/early 2000s. My sister was so fascinated by this, she asked what the school's name was, so she can watch the basketball games and my uncle on YouTube ;D

I'm like "Kid, there was no YouTube in 1997", and she insisted "But everything is on YouTube, someone must have uploaded it!", and me "I doubt anyone even recorded it." ;D


http://www.reactiongifs.com/lol/Obama-lol.gif

She literally thought that YouTube existed in the late 90s. Oh my god, that made me laugh a bit because of that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 07/31/16 at 8:16 pm


Nobody. I just assume you guys are super young until you actually reveal your age. I don't get half the sh!t you guys talk about sometimes.

Everyone sucks if they're born after 1982. ;) ;D

I wasn't afraid of anything back then and I'm still not today. Growing up back then was cool.
You mean things from the 00s and today?

Super young as in adolescents?

Naw man!  ;) ;D

Yeah man! It all depends on the environment and the impact on someone. Despite all the terrible things that occurred, I still enjoyed the 90s and early 00s as a kid and the rest of the latter as a adolescent.

Oh, and if you're not scared of anything, are you afraid of spiders?


I'm still undecided if the last year for Millennials is 2000 or 2004.
Well, it's actually earlier than that. I'm going with 1998.


To play Devil's advocate, 2004 and 2005 babies vaguely remember a world before smartphones and iPads, and social media completely taking over, which seems to be the reasons I see people including 1999/2000 borns as millennials.
I see that too, but that's only one factor. Other elements I see regarding the cutoff of being a Millennial is recalling Y2K and the transition; being in school during the 1999-00 year; remembering a time before the Great Recession, and recalling 9/11 (which doesn't work)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 07/31/16 at 10:27 pm


You mean things from the 00s and today?


Yeah, mostly. Stuff from the mid 00's to today.


Super young as in adolescents?


In between 12-15. It's still weird to think people born in the mid-late 90's (when I was messin' it up in high school) are now full grown adults! :o


Naw man!  ;) ;D


You know the truth. 1982'ers for life. ;)


Yeah man! It all depends on the environment and the impact on someone. Despite all the terrible things that occurred, I still enjoyed the 90s and early 00s as a kid and the rest of the latter as a adolescent.


Pretty much. I live in San Jose so if there is any major event that had the closet impact to me during the turn of the century, it's the Dot Com burst in March 2000. Well, Columbine, too, since I was still in High School then. A lot of people around here were either scared sh!tless to go back to school after the shooting or they lost jobs, got pretty depressed over it and felt helpless over their future (like, a lot of 20 somethings who just got into the internet field, for example). Not me personally but I saw it happen in both cases. Regardless, I still enjoy the fun stuff that happened back then. Bad stuff happens 24/7 all around the world and you can't stop that from letting you live a full life. That's stupid.


Oh, and if you're not scared of anything, are you afraid of spiders?


Nah, they're not that scary. I've held big tarantulas before.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/01/16 at 2:55 am


Yeah, mostly. Stuff from the mid 00's to today.

In between 12-15. It's still weird to think people born in the mid-late 90's (when I was messin' it up in high school) are now full grown adults! :o

You know the truth. 1982'ers for life. ;)

Pretty much. I live in San Jose so if there is any major event that had the closet impact to me during the turn of the century, it's the Dot Com burst in March 2000. Well, Columbine, too, since I was still in High School then. A lot of people around here were either scared sh!tless to go back to school after the shooting or they lost jobs, got pretty depressed over it and felt helpless over their future (like, a lot of 20 somethings who just got into the internet field, for example). Not me personally but I saw it happen in both cases. Regardless, I still enjoy the fun stuff that happened back then. Bad stuff happens 24/7 all around the world and you can't stop that from letting you live a full life. That's stupid.


Nah, they're not that scary. I've held big tarantulas before.
If you think that's weird, just wait until those from the early 00s are adults in the next several years! :o :o

Not even close!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ::) ::) ::) ::)

Right on! There has been terrible things that impacted me very much, but I try not to let it take over me to where I'm depressed. BTW, since you live in SJ, did you see anyone be sacred s**tless when the 2003 wildfires happened in SD?

Damn! That's brave of you. Some folks wouldn't even let a tarantula go near them as far as holding them.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/01/16 at 9:30 am


I mean general lifestyle. Watching TV by waiting for the show to come on (no Netflix), going on the Internet to listen to music and watching funny videos (Broadband Internet) etc. Lifestyle wise, it was the same. I'm not talking about TV shows lol.

In 2003 I got broadband Internet. Before that, I barely went on the Internet, maybe a few times a week to check cheat codes and send emails to my dad while he's at work or something lol. After that, other than MSN and some Web 1.0, my childhood wasn't all that different from early Zers, especially in 2004 when RuneScape took off.


Nah, I never mentioned TV shows, and my family got Windows XP and broadband in Christmas 2001, and I've been getting on the internet regularly since 2002. Before RuneScape, there was Planet Hot Wheels (which was underrated I'm the only one on this site who knows about it) but that didn't mean the lifestyle in 2002 or 03 was the same as the early 2010's (before Netflix), and besides, you already had "On Demand" throughout the late 2000's on certain cables long before Netflix got big. 2002-2005 lifestyle wise felt mostly the same to me except for the pop culture being different in 2002/03 compared to 2004/05. Youtube didn't even get popular until 2006 or 2007, so for most of the mid 2000's it wasn't a big deal yet, despite the website launching in 2005. By the early 2010's internet had long already became a necessity and kids started being glued to their mobile phones or iPad's. Not similar to the mid 2000's in my opinion, and yes, we lived in different countries growing up so you might view things differently  ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 08/01/16 at 9:46 am


Haha YouTube. One way I know people born in the mid-2000s are 100% Gen Z is when we went to our uncle's house, he has a lot of trophies for an elementary school basketball team he used to coach in the 90s/early 2000s. My sister was so fascinated by this, she asked what the school's name was, so she can watch the basketball games and my uncle on YouTube ;D

I'm like "Kid, there was no YouTube in 1997", and she insisted "But everything is on YouTube, someone must have uploaded it!", and me "I doubt anyone even recorded it." ;D


In 1997, I was watching no-cable TV.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/01/16 at 1:47 pm


In 1997, I was watching no-cable TV.

So was I. In fact, before then I only watched cable TV in someone's home (who had it), or in a hotel.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/01/16 at 4:49 pm


Nah, I never mentioned TV shows, and my family got Windows XP and broadband in Christmas 2001, and I've been getting on the internet regularly since 2002. Before RuneScape, there was Planet Hot Wheels (which was underrated I'm the only one on this site who knows about it) but that didn't mean the lifestyle in 2002 or 03 was the same as the early 2010's (before Netflix), and besides, you already had "On Demand" throughout the late 2000's on certain cables long before Netflix got big. 2002-2005 lifestyle wise felt mostly the same to me except for the pop culture being different in 2002/03 compared to 2004/05. Youtube didn't even get popular until 2006 or 2007, so for most of the mid 2000's it wasn't a big deal yet, despite the website launching in 2005. By the early 2010's internet had long already became a necessity and kids started being glued to their mobile phones or iPad's. Not similar to the mid 2000's in my opinion, and yes, we lived in different countries growing up so you might view things differently  ;)


Well yeah, it was slightly more technologically advanced here and there, but I don't perceive a huge difference between my childhood in 2004/2005 and my sisters' childhoods in 2008-2012. If you replace YouTube with Funnyjunk and Yahoo! Music, day to day life was largely the same, not a generational difference.

We didn't get Netflix until 2013, and music streaming until 2014, so yeah, there are a few country differences ;D


In 1997, I was watching no-cable TV.


Don't even talk to me about antenna TV. I think I got cable in 1998 or 1999. When I was 4 or 5, I threatened my mom that I'd press the button that makes the antenna pick up signals and scramble all the channels unless she takes me to the park. She snatched the remote out of my hands and turned on the TV, and none of the channels were working. She started yelling at me and I started crying, it wasn't my fault!  :\'( A few hours later, our neighbour knocked on our door too tell us he confused our antenna for his. I didn't talk to my mom for days >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/01/16 at 6:44 pm


Don't even talk to me about antenna TV. I think I got cable in 1998 or 1999. When I was 4 or 5, I threatened my mom that I'd press the button that makes the antenna pick up signals and scramble all the channels unless she takes me to the park. She snatched the remote out of my hands and turned on the TV, and none of the channels were working. She started yelling at me and I started crying, it wasn't my fault!  :\'( A few hours later, our neighbour knocked on our door too tell us he confused our antenna for his. I didn't talk to my mom for days >:(


Wow. You really had weird ways of pissing off your mom.  :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/01/16 at 10:01 pm




Don't even talk to me about antenna TV. I think I got cable in 1998 or 1999. When I was 4 or 5, I threatened my mom that I'd press the button that makes the antenna pick up signals and scramble all the channels unless she takes me to the park. She snatched the remote out of my hands and turned on the TV, and none of the channels were working. She started yelling at me and I started crying, it wasn't my fault!  :\'( A few hours later, our neighbour knocked on our door too tell us he confused our antenna for his. I didn't talk to my mom for days >:(

I didn't get cable until late 2000, after we moved out of our mobile home, which I'd lived in for the first 20 yrs of my life.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/01/16 at 10:20 pm


I didn't get cable until late 2000, after we moved out of our mobile home, which I'd lived in for the first 20 yrs of my life.


:o That's interesting. Did you still live in California?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/01/16 at 10:22 pm


Haha YouTube. One way I know people born in the mid-2000s are 100% Gen Z is when we went to our uncle's house, he has a lot of trophies for an elementary school basketball team he used to coach in the 90s/early 2000s. My sister was so fascinated by this, she asked what the school's name was, so she can watch the basketball games and my uncle on YouTube ;D

I'm like "Kid, there was no YouTube in 1997", and she insisted "But everything is on YouTube, someone must have uploaded it!", and me "I doubt anyone even recorded it." ;D


;D

Your story just reminded me of a similar one.

When I was growing up, my parents could not afford a camcorder because they were still relatively expensive at the time. Subsequently, there is essentially zero recorded video footage of my childhood. My 2005 born cousin, on the other hand, has grown up in an era where cell phone cameras are always within reach, and his parents have been able to record damn near every major moment of his childhood for posterity.

Needless to say, he was shocked when he found out that I wasn't actually captured on video for the first time until the Summer of 2001, when I was almost 14 years old. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/01/16 at 10:22 pm


:o That's interesting. Did you still live in California?

Yes. I have lived in California all 36 years of my life. :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 08/01/16 at 10:27 pm


In 1997, I was watching no-cable TV.

We've had cable before I was born.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/01/16 at 10:29 pm


;D

Your story just reminded me of a similar one.

When I was growing up, my parents could not afford a camcorder because they were still relatively expensive at the time. Subsequently, there is essentially zero recorded video footage of my childhood. My 2005 born cousin, on the other hand, has grown up in an era where cell phone cameras are always within reach, and his parents have been able to record damn near every major moment of his childhood for posterity.

Needless to say, he was shocked when he found out that I wasn't actually captured on video for the first time until the Summer of 2001, when I was almost 14 years old. ;D



Hey hey hey, I think you're forgetting something, what happened to the 1996 Macarena school dance you did? We have to track that tape down :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/01/16 at 10:31 pm


;D

Your story just reminded me of a similar one.

When I was growing up, my parents could not afford a camcorder because they were still relatively expensive at the time. Subsequently, there is essentially zero recorded video footage of my childhood. My 2005 born cousin, on the other hand, has grown up in an era where cell phone cameras are always within reach, and his parents have been able to record damn near every major moment of his childhood for posterity.

Needless to say, he was shocked when he found out that I wasn't actually captured on video for the first time until the Summer of 2001, when I was almost 14 years old. ;D

My household has never owned a camcorder either (nor has anyone in my family), but my parents did take LOTS of pictures of me, which we have in photo albums. My maternal grandfather also loved taking pictures of me, but he passed away when I was 5, since his life was cut short due to cancer.

I might have been captured on video for the first time when I was at school, but this was for a class project (when I was in middle school or so).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/01/16 at 10:34 pm



Hey hey hey, I think you're forgetting something, what happened to the 1996 Macarena school dance you did? We have to track that tape down :P


There is no tape of that. There never has been, and there never will be.

Unless, of course, you've heard something different! :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 08/05/16 at 9:58 am


You mean things from the 00s and today?

Super young as in adolescents?

Naw man!  ;) ;D

Yeah man! It all depends on the environment and the impact on someone. Despite all the terrible things that occurred, I still enjoyed the 90s and early 00s as a kid and the rest of the latter as a adolescent.

Oh, and if you're not scared of anything, are you afraid of spiders?
Well, it's actually earlier than that. I'm going with 1998.
I see that too, but that's only one factor. Other elements I see regarding the cutoff of being a Millennial is recalling Y2K and the transition; being in school during the 1999-00 year; remembering a time before the Great Recession, and recalling 9/11 (which doesn't work)
Why do you end Gen Y at 1998? What is the start of it to you?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/05/16 at 12:14 pm


Why do you end Gen Y at 1998? What is the start of it to you?

He now thinks the late 70s is the start.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/05/16 at 2:20 pm


Why do you end Gen Y at 1998? What is the start of it to you?
I'm not the only one who's seen that cutoff. Some sources have even used it. Now the reasons why I already gave back on a few posts, but here they are:

One element is recalling Y2K and the transition; another is being in school during the 1999-00 year; a third is remembering a time before the Great Recession; a 4th factor recalling 9/11 and last is voting in this election. Everyone after 1998 is definitely not able to recall any of these things or vote for Clinton or Trump.


He now thinks the late 70s is the start.
If you want to know, there's actually articles out there that have listed the late 70s as the start and not all of them are very old either. So, I can see why they could be the oldest Millennials with the reasons given from sources.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 08/05/16 at 3:29 pm

Seems that generation demographers and researchers all have different ideas of when people are able to first retain memories.

In their books, Strauss and Howe believe the difference between somebody born in 1960 (who they consider a late boomer) and someone born in 1961 (who they consider an early Gen Xer) is that the former grew up traumatized by the JFK assassination, while the latter was just narrowly too young to remember.

The NY Times consider Millennials 1977-1995 because they believe someone who was 6 on 9/11 would remember it well enough, while someone who was 5 would not.

Dale Carnegie Research and Gallup peg Millennials as 1980-1996 because, I'm guessing, they think someone who was 5 on 9/11 would remember it, while someone who was 4 would not.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/05/16 at 3:53 pm


Seems that generation demographers and researchers all have different ideas of when people are able to first retain memories.

In their books, Strauss and Howe believe the difference between somebody born in 1960 (who they consider a late boomer) and someone born in 1961 (who they consider an early Gen Xer) is that the former grew up traumatized by the JFK assassination, while the latter was just narrowly too young to remember.

The NY Times consider Millennials 1977-1995 because they believe someone who was 6 on 9/11 would remember it well enough, while someone who was 5 would not.

Dale Carnegie Research and Gallup peg Millennials as 1980-1996 because, I'm guessing, they think someone who was 5 on 9/11 would remember it, while someone who was 4 would not.
Well with the events they're using to determine the cutoffs is one way since that's who they impacted the most. You also have to think that all these generations and the events are associated with sociology because they are all social patterns.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/08/16 at 1:37 am

Hey guys. You should check out these discussions. Despite them being old, they're still good to read.

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AGeneration_Z

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 08/08/16 at 5:10 am

The arguments on the Gen X archive pages were so complex they made my head hurt.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/09/16 at 12:53 am


The arguments on the Gen X archive pages were so complex they made my head hurt.
Did you check out the others?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 08/09/16 at 6:55 am


You mean things from the 00s and today?

Super young as in adolescents?

Naw man!  ;) ;D

Yeah man! It all depends on the environment and the impact on someone. Despite all the terrible things that occurred, I still enjoyed the 90s and early 00s as a kid and the rest of the latter as a adolescent.

Oh, and if you're not scared of anything, are you afraid of spiders?
Well, it's actually earlier than that. I'm going with 1998.
I see that too, but that's only one factor. Other elements I see regarding the cutoff of being a Millennial is recalling Y2K and the transition; being in school during the 1999-00 year; remembering a time before the Great Recession, and recalling 9/11 (which doesn't work)
Would 1980-1998 work as a definition of Gen Y?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/09/16 at 8:41 am


Would 1980-1998 work as a definition of Gen Y?
Yeah, it would giving the many reasons shown. I mean you have to look at this generation, it's humongous. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 08/09/16 at 3:21 pm


Would 1980-1998 work as a definition of Gen Y?



Yeah, it would giving the many reasons shown. I mean you have to look at this generation, it's humongous.


I agree with this, but I would use 1999 as cutoff for the end of Gen Y, because 1999 is still part of the 1990's. That's why we should start Gen Z in 2000. Makes more sense like that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/09/16 at 4:12 pm


I agree with this, but I would use 1999 as cutoff for the end of Gen Y, because 1999 is still part of the 1990's. That's why we should start Gen Z in 2000. Makes more sense like that.


But it's not like 1999 babies could be that related towards Generation Y. Sure, they could be related with 1996-1998 babies, but it's not like they graduated elementary school during the 2000s. Maybe that's why 1999 babies are the start of Gen Z to some people.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/09/16 at 4:17 pm


I agree with this, but I would use 1999 as cutoff for the end of Gen Y, because 1999 is still part of the 1990's. That's why we should start Gen Z in 2000. Makes more sense like that.


Just because a year is a part of a decade doesn't automatically make it within the same generation as the other years in the same decade. For example Baby Boomer generation ends in the mid 60s. We can't go saying that Baby Boomers ended in 1969 since the year is a part of the 1960s and that Gen X should start in 1970.

Ending Gen Y in 1999 isn't a bad idea, but that idea of ending at it a specific year just because it makes more sense without giving actual reasons leads to problems. Why do you end in 1999? The term Millennial relates to the year 2000 which is still in the 20th century with 1999. And everything from pop culture to politics were still the same. And those born between 1999 and 2000 have no differences what so ever. So sources end it before 2000, but span changes everywhere you go.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/09/16 at 4:28 pm


You should included 1995 in there. 1995-1998 babies are related in my opinion, because 2016 is the first election any of them can vote in.

I saw a post on Facebook about the Y/Z cusp, which I think perfectly encapsulates the feelings of our Y/Z members here (Eric, Marquis, Ocarinafan96, etc.).

Unfortunately, the author botched up its message royally by mistaking Gen X for Millennials and Millennials for Gen Z. ::)

http://i.imgur.com/RKFfZZg.png


I don't go with idea that a certain group are related just because they happened to be able to vote when a certain election started. And that image you posted could easily fit in 1993/4 and 1999 born in the 1995-1998 range. 1994 and 1995 born aren't different from what I've seen. Same for 1998-1999. I group people together mainly on when they grew up and what they experience. 1993-1999 all grew up in the 2000s with 1993-1995/6 remembering the 1990s leftovers (I don't see how anyone from 1997 onward can remember the 1990s leftovers if they didn't even grew up in the early 2000s). But hey this is just how I see it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 08/09/16 at 7:20 pm


Just because a year is a part of a decade doesn't automatically make it within the same generation as the other years in the same decade. For example Baby Boomer generation ends in the mid 60s. We can't go saying that Baby Boomers ended in 1969 since the year is a part of the 1960s and that Gen X should start in 1970.

Ending Gen Y in 1999 isn't a bad idea, but that idea of ending at it a specific year just because it makes more sense without giving actual reasons leads to problems. Why do you end in 1999? The term Millennial relates to the year 2000 which is still in the 20th century with 1999. And everything from pop culture to politics were still the same. And those born between 1999 and 2000 have no differences what so ever. So sources end it before 2000, but span changes everywhere you go.


The reason why I decided to group all the 90's born people in one generation (Millennial) is because there were the last people on earth to be born before 2000. I wasn't talking about the other decades and the other generations, I was talking about why Millennials should end in 1999 and Gen Z should start in 2000.


I don't go with idea that a certain group are related just because they happened to be able to vote when a certain election started. And that image you posted could easily fit in 1993/4 and 1999 born in the 1995-1998 range. 1994 and 1995 born aren't different from what I've seen. Same for 1998-1999. I group people together mainly on when they grew up and what they experience. 1993-1999 all grew up in the 2000s with 1993-1995/6 remembering the 1990s leftovers (I don't see how anyone from 1997 onward can remember the 1990s leftovers if they didn't even grew up in the early 2000s). But hey this is just how I see it.


I can remember the late 90's vaguely. The only things I was doing during the late 90's was that I was playing myself, walk and eat. Nothing else.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/09/16 at 7:35 pm


I agree with this, but I would use 1999 as cutoff for the end of Gen Y, because 1999 is still part of the 1990's. That's why we should start Gen Z in 2000. Makes more sense like that.
Well, I already gave many reasons why 1998 is considered to be youngest Millennial. If you want to know, there are people who are NYE's age who actually don't see themselves as Millennials.


But it's not like 1999 babies could be that related towards Generation Y. Sure, they could be related with 1996-1998 babies, but it's not like they graduated elementary school during the 2000s. Maybe that's why 1999 babies are the start of Gen Z to some people.
It's more than that. They can't vote; they're still in high school; can't recall 9/11, Y2K, Katrina, or even the recession; more likely to have Gen X parents and they don't remember when old tech like cassettes, VHS and floppy disks.


You should included 1995 in there. 1995-1998 babies are related in my opinion, because 2016 is the first election any of them can vote in.

I saw a post on Facebook about the Y/Z cusp, which I think perfectly encapsulates the feelings of our Y/Z members here (Eric, Marquis, Ocarinafan96, etc.).

Unfortunately, the author botched up its message royally by mistaking Gen X for Millennials and Millennials for Gen Z. ::)

http://i.imgur.com/RKFfZZg.png
Yeah, they sure in a weird group. They might not be completely Millennials, but they're also not entirely Plurals either.


I don't go with idea that a certain group are related just because they happened to be able to vote when a certain election started. And that image you posted could easily fit in 1993/4 and 1999 born in the 1995-1998 range. 1994 and 1995 born aren't different from what I've seen. Same for 1998-1999. I group people together mainly on when they grew up and what they experience. 1993-1999 all grew up in the 2000s with 1993-1995/6 remembering the 1990s leftovers (I don't see how anyone from 1997 onward can remember the 1990s leftovers if they didn't even grew up in the early 2000s). But hey this is just how I see it.
Well it's not just elections, but also traits, events, misc etc.

In addition, 1993 and 1994 are not that different either from those 1991 and 1992 as well. I think what Zelek was pointing out is that the group's first presidential election is this year while others have already voted in one which makes them in between the Y/Z cusp.

If you want to know, Not only have I seen people NYE's age say they don't see themselves as Millennials, but even people who are Eric's age and Mqg's age. I truly think the 1995-98 group is Y/Z not only in an election, but in other factors as well.


The reason why I decided to group all the 90's born people in one generation (Millennial) is because there were the last people on earth to be born before 2000. I wasn't talking about the other decades and the other generations, I was talking about why Millennials should end in 1999 and Gen Z should start in 2000.

I can remember the late 90's vaguely. The only things I was doing during the late 90's was that I was playing myself, walk and eat. Nothing else.
The name Millennial doesn't refer those who born around 2000, but those who graduated HS around that year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/09/16 at 8:24 pm


It's more than that. They can't vote; they're still in high school; can't recall 9/11, Y2K, Katrina, or even the recession; more likely to have Gen X parents and they don't remember when old tech like cassettes, VHS and floppy disks.


1. They could somehow recall 9/11, but they were probably about two or two and a half when the attacks happened. Hell, there could be people born in 1998 who wouldn't remember 9/11 at all. Same with Y2K, Katrina, and probably the Recession while we're at it. There's some differences between toddlers, even if they were born a year apart.

2. As someone who actually used a VCR and cassette player, especially being born in 1999, it doesn't really seem that important.

3. Some could still identify themselves as Y/Z hybrids. It's not really that official towards everybody. It's just an ideology.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/09/16 at 8:33 pm

My 1994 born cousin tried to make fun of my sister for being a millennial, and I'm like "Dude... we're millennials..." ,and he says "No, we're Generation Y" LOL

Also I don't buy it when 0-2/3 year olds say they remember 9/11. Next they'll say they remember cutting their umbilical cords or discovered when they had hands or something. A baby's brain literally can't process a plane flying into a building, causing the building to catch fire and collapse, or the significance of such an event, let alone go the extra step of retaining this information for future purposes. It's just not how the toddler brain works.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 08/09/16 at 8:37 pm


My 1994 born cousin tried to make fun of my sister for being a millennial, and I'm like "Dude... we're millennials..." ,and he says "No, we're Generation Y" LOL

Also I don't buy it when 0-4 year olds say they remember 9/11. Next they'll say they remember cutting their umbilical cords or discovered when they had hands or something. A baby's brain literally can't process a plane flying into a building, causing the building to catch fire and collapse, or the significance of such an event, let alone go the extra step of retaining this information for future purposes. It's just not how the toddler brain works.

How old is your sister? ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/09/16 at 8:37 pm


In addition, 1993 and 1994 are not that different either from those 1991 and 1992 as well. I think what Zelek was pointing out is that the group's first presidential election is this year while others have already voted in one which makes them in between the Y/Z cusp.

If you want to know, Not only have I seen people NYE's age say they don't see themselves as Millennials, but even people who are Eric's age and Mqg's age. I truly think the 1995-98 group is Y/Z not only in an election, but in other factors as well.




I'm damn sick and tired of people saying 1994 born are from a different generation....
Also I'm VERY tired of hearing the word cusp.  >:( >:( >:(  I didn't start hearing that stupid word until last year.


Also people my age don't view themselves as millennials?  ???  Damn, that's crazy! :o  I wonder why....

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/09/16 at 8:38 pm


How old is your sister? ???


11, born 2005.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/09/16 at 8:39 pm

I just wonder if I was born on October of 1994, how I would be viewed....

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/09/16 at 9:01 pm


When it comes to millennials, your cousin sounds like those on 4chan's /v/ board.

I've mentioned this before, but on that board, people in their 20s-early 30s complain about how "Millennials" ruined gaming and grew up on PewDiePie, mobile games, Call of Duty, Flappy Bird, Wii Sports, "casualization", games with an "SJW agenda" (which, if they exist at all, arguably didn't pop until around 2013), etc. ???

They're actually referring to Gen Z, but no matter how much some posters try to correct them, they never believe it. ;D


Hmm, sounds like a Gator hive lol. He's an SJW and likes shooters, so I'm not sure he goes there lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/09/16 at 9:13 pm


1. They could somehow recall 9/11, but they were probably about two or two and a half when the attacks happened. Hell, there could be people born in 1998 who wouldn't remember 9/11 at all. Same with Y2K, Katrina, and probably the Recession while we're at it. There's some differences between toddlers, even if they were born a year apart.

2. As someone who actually used a VCR and cassette player, especially being born in 1999, it doesn't really seem that important.

3. Some could still identify themselves as Y/Z hybrids. It's not really that official towards everybody. It's just an ideology.
Oh I meant when they were in common. Sorry, I forgot that part.

Everything you stated is they're part of the Y/Z cusp.


I'm damn sick and tired of people saying 1994 born are from a different generation....
Also I'm VERY tired of hearing the word cusp.  >:( >:( >:(  I didn't start hearing that stupid word until last year.


Also people my age don't view themselves as millennials?  ???  Damn, that's crazy! :o  I wonder why....
Well they're truly not, but some people think so. Also, I'm sure not only do you have things in common with 1994 folks, but even the 1991-93 bracket as well.

As for the cusp, by saying there's no such thing that means no generation has one.

Well, not all of them, but then there are some like you where they don't seem themselves as Zers.


I just wonder if I was born on October of 1994, how I would be viewed....
The same. Like I said, the youngest Yer is 1998 for a variety of reasons.


When it comes to millennials, your cousin sounds like those on 4chan's /v/ board.

I've mentioned this before, but on that board, people in their 20s-early 30s complain about how "Millennials" ruined gaming and grew up on PewDiePie, mobile games, Call of Duty, Flappy Bird, Wii Sports, "casualization", games with an "SJW agenda" (which, if they exist at all, arguably didn't pop until around 2013), etc. ???

They're actually referring to Gen Z, but no matter how much some posters try to correct them, they never believe it.
;D
You can't believe how many times I have ran into this issue. Those ignorant people need to understand that Millennials are not Gen Z, they're Y which is the same thing. Plurals are the Z generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/09/16 at 9:47 pm


Also I don't buy it when 0-2/3 year olds say they remember 9/11. Next they'll say they remember cutting their umbilical cords or discovered when they had hands or something. A baby's brain literally can't process a plane flying into a building, causing the building to catch fire and collapse, or the significance of such an event, let alone go the extra step of retaining this information for future purposes. It's just not how the toddler brain works.


I totally agree. I was 2 years old when the Berlin Wall came down, and 4 years old when the Soviet Union collapsed, and I have absolutely zero memories of either event. To the extent that I do have memories from 1989-1991, it's only things that a toddler would remember, like playing with my toys or going to preschool.

I don't recall being aware of any major world/political events at all until I was in elementary school. And, even then, when it comes to the stuff I can remember clearly from 1994-95 (like the O.J. Simpson Chase and the Oklahoma City Bombing) I still wasn't really old enough at the time to fully grasp what was happening.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 08/09/16 at 9:52 pm


My 1994 born cousin tried to make fun of my sister for being a millennial, and I'm like "Dude... we're millennials..." ,and he says "No, we're Generation Y" LOL

Also I don't buy it when 0-2/3 year olds say they remember 9/11. Next they'll say they remember cutting their umbilical cords or discovered when they had hands or something. A baby's brain literally can't process a plane flying into a building, causing the building to catch fire and collapse, or the significance of such an event, let alone go the extra step of retaining this information for future purposes. It's just not how the toddler brain works.

Well, there's someone on PersonalityCafe who saw 9/11 live on TV while using a coloring book at age 2. Then again, it's not like he/she processed that there was a terroristic event going on, all that he/she processed was that he/she saw two burning towers on TV while using a coloring book.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/09/16 at 10:37 pm


I totally agree. I was 2 years old when the Berlin Wall came down, and 4 years old when the Soviet Union collapsed, and I have absolutely zero memories of either event. To the extent that I do have memories from 1989-1991, it's only things that a toddler would remember, like playing with my toys or going to preschool.

I don't recall being aware of any major world/political events at all until I was in elementary school. And, even then, when it comes to the stuff I can remember clearly from 1994-95 (like the O.J. Simpson Chase and the Oklahoma City Bombing) I still wasn't really old enough at the time to fully grasp what was happening.


Yep, exactly. It's not even understanding the event that's the issue, there are so many secondary things about certain events that toddlers just don't understand. We're talking about people who can't even talk yet. But somehow there are thousands of 0-2 year olds who remember two random buildings being shown on TV  ???


Well, there's someone on PersonalityCafe who saw 9/11 go on live on TV while using a coloring book at age 2. Then again, it's not like he/she processed that there was a terroristic event going on, all that he/she processed was that he/she saw two burning towers on TV while using a coloring book.


I think either
1) this memory happened a lot later than he says, either 4 or 5.
2) there was some other building on fire
3) this memory didn't happen

If you've been around 2 year olds, it would become obvious that their brains are at least ten steps behind remembering a random event like 9/11. First they'd have to understand that fire is a bad thing, then they'd have to understand that a building on fire is abnormal, then they'd have to know that a building getting shorter is not a good thing, then they'd have to know that people are dying in this event and what dying is etc. etc. It's just not something a 2 year old is capable of. People can say they remember it, but if they expect me to believe it, they're SOL :P

I'd say someoje born 1997 is the last to remember it on TV, but even then, maybe 0.5 or 1 per cent of them remember it. 1999 and after, I'm pretty certain in saying that none of them remember it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 08/09/16 at 10:49 pm

For what it's worth, I remember being the car with my dad when I was around 2-3 y/o, as he played "Baba O'Riley" as we drove along the Pennsylvanian sunset. :P

Also, did Canada even care about 9/11 that much? Did it affect your country to an extent?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/09/16 at 10:52 pm


For what it's worth, I remember being the car with my dad when I was around 2-3 y/o, as he played "Baba O'Riley" as we drove along the Pennsylvanian sunset. :P


That sounds believable, since it happened to you personally.  ;D

Also you just ousted yourself as American. The jig is up :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 08/09/16 at 10:54 pm

Yes, I'm American. Nothing wrong with that. ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/09/16 at 11:04 pm


Also, did Canada even care about 9/11 that much? Did it affect your country to an extent?


For adults, yes. For kids, no. We weren't sent home and the teachers didn't talk about it (or at least not enough for me to remember). The only 9/11 related memories I have is watching my parents watch the Pentagon attacks on loop, and I was nagging at them to get off the TV so I could play on my cousin's Genesis. That pissed my dad off lol. Then there were some people who arsoned Hindu temples and mosques in my city, and my aunt told me it was because of 9/11. For some reason, I interpreted that as America attacking Canada for 9/11, and I thought war was imminent, and that really scared me  :o


Yes, I'm American. Nothing wrong with that. ;)


There was that other thread you were pretending to be British ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/10/16 at 9:08 am


For what it's worth, I remember being the car with my dad when I was around 2-3 y/o, as he played "Baba O'Riley" as we drove along the Pennsylvanian sunset. :P


Yeah, that sounds totally believable. I can remember several little things from when I was around 2 or 3 (including the birth of my younger brother when I was just shy of 4), but they're all personal memories involving me or my family. The only thing I don't buy is that a toddler would be able to have any significant memory of a world/political event like 9/11.

As I've mentioned before, one of the earliest memories I have is of riding in the backseat of my mom's 1982 Ford LTD when I was around 2 or 3 while "I Wanna Be Rich" by Calloway was blaring through the speakers. Toddler memories tend to be the most random things. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 08/10/16 at 9:22 am


Yeah, that sounds totally believable. I can remember several little things from when I was around 2 or 3 (including the birth of my younger brother when I was just shy of 4), but they're all personal memories involving me or my family. The only thing I don't buy is that a toddler would be able to have any significant memory of a world/political event like 9/11.

As I've mentioned before, one of the earliest memories I have is of riding in the backseat of my mom's 1982 Ford LTD when I was around 2 or 3 while "I Wanna Be Rich" by Calloway was blaring through the speakers. Toddler memories tend to be the most random things. ;D

I believe the person who said he/she saw 9/11 on TV because for him/her at such a young age, it was just something random on TV.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/10/16 at 10:32 am


For what it's worth, I remember being the car with my dad when I was around 2-3 y/o, as he played "Baba O'Riley" as we drove along the Pennsylvanian sunset. :P


My first memory was just going to my dad's friend's house, just to see some newborn baby. Then my dad took me to a playground with a 2000 Subaru Outback. That seems simplistic to remember, compared to 9/11.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/10/16 at 1:31 pm


Also I don't buy it when 0-2/3 year olds say they remember 9/11. Next they'll say they remember cutting their umbilical cords or discovered when they had hands or something. A baby's brain literally can't process a plane flying into a building, causing the building to catch fire and collapse, or the significance of such an event, let alone go the extra step of retaining this information for future purposes. It's just not how the toddler brain works.



Yep, exactly. It's not even understanding the event that's the issue, there are so many secondary things about certain events that toddlers just don't understand. We're talking about people who can't even talk yet. But somehow there are thousands of 0-2 year olds who remember two random buildings being shown on TV  ???

I think either
1) this memory happened a lot later than he says, either 4 or 5.
2) there was some other building on fire
3) this memory didn't happen

If you've been around 2 year olds, it would become obvious that their brains are at least ten steps behind remembering a random event like 9/11. First they'd have to understand that fire is a bad thing, then they'd have to understand that a building on fire is abnormal, then they'd have to know that a building getting shorter is not a good thing, then they'd have to know that people are dying in this event and what dying is etc. etc. It's just not something a 2 year old is capable of. People can say they remember it, but if they expect me to believe it, they're SOL :P

I'd say someoje born 1997 is the last to remember it on TV, but even then, maybe 0.5 or 1 per cent of them remember it. 1999 and after, I'm pretty certain in saying that none of them remember it.



I totally agree. I was 2 years old when the Berlin Wall came down, and 4 years old when the Soviet Union collapsed, and I have absolutely zero memories of either event. To the extent that I do have memories from 1989-1991, it's only things that a toddler would remember, like playing with my toys or going to preschool.

I don't recall being aware of any major world/political events at all until I was in elementary school. And, even then, when it comes to the stuff I can remember clearly from 1994-95 (like the O.J. Simpson Chase and the Oklahoma City Bombing) I still wasn't really old enough at the time to fully grasp what was happening.


If that's the case for 9/11, then we can also in factor in the Lewinsky scandal, Columbine, Y2K, Iraq, Katrina, and the 2000 election. I'm sure for a fact that most people after 1995/96 can't recall most of these events.


For what it's worth, I remember being the car with my dad when I was around 2-3 y/o, as he played "Baba O'Riley" as we drove along the Pennsylvanian sunset. :P



Yeah, that sounds totally believable. I can remember several little things from when I was around 2 or 3 (including the birth of my younger brother when I was just shy of 4), but they're all personal memories involving me or my family. The only thing I don't buy is that a toddler would be able to have any significant memory of a world/political event like 9/11.

As I've mentioned before, one of the earliest memories I have is of riding in the backseat of my mom's 1982 Ford LTD when I was around 2 or 3 while "I Wanna Be Rich" by Calloway was blaring through the speakers. Toddler memories tend to be the most random things. ;D



My first memory was just going to my dad's friend's house, just to see some newborn baby. Then my dad took me to a playground with a 2000 Subaru Outback. That seems simplistic to remember, compared to 9/11.
I remember playing my SNES when I was 2 and 3 years old as well as being in my second house. I recall having a dog that ran away later on and listening to hip-hop and R&B songs that my family were playing in the car, and I also remember watching children's shows and Disney movies as well as heading to school.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/10/16 at 1:34 pm

Well when going by the 9/11 rule (which I don't think really works) I mainly see it as whether it would have a big effect on someone. And the only people that would've been effected by it would've been teens and adults. You could be 6, 7, or 8 and while you may remember it I doubt you'd have much of an effect from it. Kids in that age range don't understand political or economical concepts. Nor did they fully grasp everything that was going on during the event and after. I could walk up to an elementary schooler and ask them what politics are and what political events were happening right now and I doubt they'd be able to answer in clear detail.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/10/16 at 1:39 pm


If that's the case for 9/11, then we can also in factor in the Lewinsky scandal, Columbine, Y2K, Iraq, Katrina, and the 2000 election. I'm sure for a fact that most people after 1995/96 can't recall most of these events.
I remember playing my SNES when I was 2 and 3 years old as well as being in my second house. I recall having a dog that ran away later on and listening to hip-hop and R&B songs that my family were playing in the car, and I also remember watching children's shows and Disney movies as well as heading to school.


I don't see how things like the Lewinsky scandal or the Columbine events matter much as I don't remember many people bringing those events up when talking about generations. But anyways how I see it is if it happened in your core childhood then chances are you may remember it (although what counts as core childhood differs from person to person. But I generally say your K-5th grade years of 5-10. Also when you say "after 1995/96" do you mean from 1995/96 onward or from 1996/97 onward? People always say "after " yet I feel like they don't know what "after" means. Now I'm not assuming you're using it wrong, but in many other places like articles or comments I always see this type of confusion. For example I'd see "After 2000" which would make me think 2001 onward, but apparently the person is saying 2000 onward which makes no sense since it says "AFTER 2000" instead of "2000 onward".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/10/16 at 1:47 pm


I don't see how things like the Lewinsky scandal or the Columbine events matter much as I don't remember many people bringing those events up when talking about generations. But anyways how I see it is if it happened in your core childhood then chances are you may remember it (although what counts as core childhood differs from person to person. But I generally say your K-5th grade years of 5-10. Also when you say "after 1995/96" do you mean from 1995/96 onward or from 1996/97 onward?
I don't see those brought up as much either, but they do help on who can remember those events and those who can't.

As for the question, it would be post-1995/96. I'm sure people Mqg's age can remember 9/11, Y2K, the 2000 election and the summer 2000 Olympics.


Well when going by the 9/11 rule (which I don't think really works) I mainly see it as whether it would have a big effect on someone. And the only people that would've been effected by it would've been teens and adults. You could be 6, 7, or 8 and while you may remember it I doubt you'd have much of an effect from it. Kids in that age range don't understand political or economical concepts. Nor did they fully grasp everything that was going on during the event and after. I could walk up to an elementary schooler and ask them what politics are and what political events were happening right now and I doubt they'd be able to answer in clear detail.
9/11 is one element, but it's not the only one. There's more we have to look at when talking about generations.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/10/16 at 1:50 pm


I don't see those brought up as much either, but they do help on who can remember those events and those who can't.

As for the question, it would be post-1995/96. I'm sure people Mqg's age can remember 9/11, Y2K, the 2000 election and the summer 2000 Olympics.
9/11 is one element, but it's not the only one. There's more we have to look at when talking about generations.


Ah, gotcha. A bit curious on another thing. Does someone have to remember ALL the events in order to be considered part of the generation? Or just most of them?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/10/16 at 1:57 pm


Ah, gotcha. A bit curious on another thing. Does someone have to remember ALL the events in order to be considered part of the generation? Or just most of them?
Most of them, but remembering them all will make someone undeniably part of the generation. The events that greatly impacted the Millennials didn't start until about 1997.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/10/16 at 2:05 pm


Most of them, but remembering them all will make someone undeniably part of the generation. The events that greatly impacted the Millennials didn't start until about 1997.


How I imagined it to be was those from remember all of them were probably early-core members of the generations. Those who remember most of them, but not all would be late members. Also it's funny how the events that would impact millennials would start in 1997 since that's the year we started transitioning into millennial culture. Makes me wonder what events will greatly effect Plurals and what would be the time frame that we transitioned from Millennial culture into Plural culture.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/10/16 at 2:16 pm

My 1997, 1999, 2000 and 2001 born cousins have a lot of the same childhood music as my 2005 born sisters. Those Disney stars. They went to a Selena Gomez concert the other day.  :o Hey guys wanna go to an Avril Lavigne concert *crickets*  :\'(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/10/16 at 2:21 pm


My 1997, 1999, 2000 and 2001 born cousins have a lot of the same childhood music as my 2005 born sisters. Those Disney stars. They went to a Selena Gomez concert yesterday.  :o


Now I'm getting bad Wizards of Waverly place flashbacks. Geez, the way that show ended was horrible. Anyways I'm curious on what years would count as Early plurals, Core Plurals, and Late Plurals (not including Cusps). And what time period does Gen Alpha start?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/10/16 at 2:37 pm


Now I'm getting bad Wizards of Waverly place flashbacks. Geez, the way that show ended was horrible. Anyways I'm curious on what years would count as Early plurals, Core Plurals, and Late Plurals (not including Cusps). And what time period does Gen Alpha start?


Show could seriously do without the laugh track. Also I noticed they wear shoes inside their house, which is really cringe inducing when they start jumping on sofas and stuff.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/10/16 at 2:39 pm


Most of them, but remembering them all will make someone undeniably part of the generation. The events that greatly impacted the Millennials didn't start until about 1997.

IMO... 1999.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/10/16 at 2:44 pm


I don't see how things like the Lewinsky scandal or the Columbine events matter much as I don't remember many people bringing those events up when talking about generations. But anyways how I see it is if it happened in your core childhood then chances are you may remember it (although what counts as core childhood differs from person to person. But I generally say your K-5th grade years of 5-10. Also when you say "after 1995/96" do you mean from 1995/96 onward or from 1996/97 onward? People always say "after " yet I feel like they don't know what "after" means. Now I'm not assuming you're using it wrong, but in many other places like articles or comments I always see this type of confusion. For example I'd see "After 2000" which would make me think 2001 onward, but apparently the person is saying 2000 onward which makes no sense since it says "AFTER 2000" instead of "2000 onward".

Markese is obviously talking about those born after 96....
and in kindergarten I was mostly 6, and 5th grade I was mostly 11.... Due to the August-July cutoff here in Missouri.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/10/16 at 3:41 pm


How I imagined it to be was those from remember all of them were probably early-core members of the generations. Those who remember most of them, but not all would be late members. Also it's funny how the events that would impact millennials would start in 1997 since that's the year we started transitioning into millennial culture. Makes me wonder what events will greatly effect Plurals and what would be the time frame that we transitioned from Millennial culture into Plural culture.
Yeah, that's because the first event that powerfully impacted Millennials was the Columbine Shooting while the rest follows through. The Lewinsky scandal was the last to generally affect Gen Xers considering most of them were following the case despite some Millennials witnessing it. So yeah, you could say 1997 was definitely the transition since one of the major events was Princess Diana's death and her funeral and the rest was pop culturally regrading movies, TV shows and music.

The events that affect the Plurals is everything that happening right now, but that's only just the beginning. As for the Y/Z pop culture transition, I think it's almost done. I honestly believe most of it is not targeted towards Millennials anymore since nearly all of them are over the college age. However, that still doesn't mean that they can't like the Centennial (another term for Z) pop culture.


IMO... 1999.
Well you have to remember, Princess Diana's death and the Clinton scandal were events that impacted Millennials, but not greatly as much as the Xers. That's why I say 1997 was the first year especially since the transition from X to Y pop culture was significant.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 08/10/16 at 3:42 pm


You can't believe how many times I have ran into this issue. Those ignorant people need to understand that Millennials are not Gen Z, they're Y which is the same thing. Plurals are the Z generation.

I just find it hilarious that people in their 20s use "millennial" as an insult for teenagers. ;D

That's like a black guy insulting a white guy by calling him the n-word. :P It doesn't make sense.

Though I must admit, "millennial" just sounds catchier, funnier, and more condescending as an insult than "Gen Z". "Gen Z" doesn't sound very catchy or memorable.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/10/16 at 3:46 pm


I just find it hilarious that people in their 20s use "millennial" as an insult for teenagers. ;D

That's like a black guy insulting a white guy by calling him the n-word. :P It doesn't make sense.
I know! Like did they forget they're the Millennials? The adolescents today are the Plurals.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/10/16 at 4:01 pm


As I've mentioned before, I think "millennial" just sounds plain funnier, catchier, and more insulting than "Gen Z". That's probably why they use it incorrectly.


Either that or they're just stupid. If I hear one more "I'm not millennial I'm actually Gen Y" from people I'm gonna lose it. Is doing a google search on Gen Y/Millennials so hard? Heck if you wiki Gen Y it'll also say that they're sometimes called Millennials. Gen Z already it's own set of names like Plurals or that one you just mentioned to me before. It's pretty stupid when people try to use an insult yet not knowing the meaning of it.

Although I'm not gonna lie....but Plurals sounds cooler than Millennials to me. Although the best name is Alphas. For get the X, Y, Z stuff. I'd rather go with Millennials, Plurals, Alphas, and whatever name you'd call Gen X. 

Lost
Greatest
Baby Boomers

Millennials
Plurals
Alphas

And I assume if we keep going the next names would be
Betas
Gammas
Deltas
Epsilon
etc etc

I like using names rather than letters. But what's funny is "Alpha" is a letter in Greek. So after Gen Z we'd get Gen α. And for Gen Gamma it'll be written as Gen Γ. But since none of us have greek letters on our keyboards we'd most likely just spell the letters out in English.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/10/16 at 4:26 pm

I'm not Generation Y, I am Generation Alpha  8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/10/16 at 4:41 pm


As I've mentioned before, I think "millennial" just sounds plain funnier, catchier, and more insulting than "Gen Z". That's probably why they use it incorrectly.
Well not only was there Millennial for Gen Y, but even Echo Boomer,(due to the similar size as their parents), Net, Y2K and Myspace.


Either that or they're just stupid. If I hear one more "I'm not millennial I'm actually Gen Y" from people I'm gonna lose it. Is doing a google search on Gen Y/Millennials so hard? Heck if you wiki Gen Y it'll also say that they're sometimes called Millennials. Gen Z already it's own set of names like Plurals or that one you just mentioned to me before. It's pretty stupid when people try to use an insult yet not knowing the meaning of it.

Although I'm not gonna lie....but Plurals sounds cooler than Millennials to me. Although the best name is Alphas. For get the X, Y, Z stuff. I'd rather go with Millennials, Plurals, Alphas, and whatever name you'd call Gen X. 

Lost
Greatest
Baby Boomers

Millennials
Plurals
Alphas

And I assume if we keep going the next names would be
Betas
Gammas
Deltas
Epsilon
etc etc

I like using names rather than letters. But what's funny is "Alpha" is a letter in Greek. So after Gen Z we'd get Gen α. And for Gen Gamma it'll be written as Gen Γ. But since none of us have greek letters on our keyboards we'd most likely just spell the letters out in English.
Yeah, I agree. Gen Y and Millennials are the same generation no matter how those ignorant people look at it. Moreover, they have other names such as Echo Boomers (due to the similar size as their parents), Net (because of the widespread of the internet), Y2K and Myspace. As for Gen Xers, many folks don't acknowledge that they have alternative names as well. Here's what they are:

MTV
Latch-Key
Slacker
13th
Baby Busters
(due to their small size like their parents, the Silents)

Gen Z even has other names like Plurals, Centennials, Homeland, Digital and New Silents (turns out they share many traits as their Gparents). So yeah, having a letter in a generation is not only laziness, but also generic. They are only used just for a placeholder until the cohort is more known to the world.

Yeah, Alphas would be after Plurals considering the majority of them are the children of Millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 08/10/16 at 4:44 pm

Slightly OT, but anyone notice the weird suggestions one gets when they type in this site's name in Google?

http://i.imgur.com/JFFfJ1I.png

PerC I can understand, because that site shares users with this one. But what does The 100 have to do with this site? Are people here big fans of that show? :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/10/16 at 4:50 pm


Slightly OT, but anyone notice the weird suggestions one gets when they type in this site's name in Google?

http://i.imgur.com/JFFfJ1I.png

PerC I can understand, because that site shares users with this one. But what does The 100 have to do with this site? Are people here big fans of that show? :P


I didn't even know what the show was until now.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/10/16 at 4:51 pm


Slightly OT, but anyone notice the weird suggestions one gets when they type in this site's name in Google?

http://i.imgur.com/JFFfJ1I.png

PerC I can understand, because that site shares users with this one. But what does The 100 have to do with this site? Are people here big fans of that show? :P
Maybe it's because this site's name is inthecentury, not inthethousands. ;D ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 08/10/16 at 4:55 pm

I tend to pronounce "00s" as "oh-ohs". :P Most other people prefer "noughties" or "aughts", however.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/10/16 at 4:57 pm


Maybe it's because this site's name is inthecentury, not inthethousands. ;D ;)


I thought it was called InThe00s, because the site was around since the 2000s decade. Especially when it was the modern site at the time. Same with how InThe70s, InThe80s, and InThe90s were made, but for nostalgic reasons.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/10/16 at 5:01 pm


I'm not Generation Y, I am Generation Alpha  8) 8) 8) 8) 8)


>:( GET OUT OF HERE  >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/10/16 at 5:18 pm


Yeah, I agree. Gen Y and Millennials are the same generation no matter how those ignorant people look at it. Moreover, they have other names such as Echo Boomers (due to the similar size as their parents), Net (because of the widespread of the internet), Y2K and Myspace. As for Gen Xers, many folks don't acknowledge that they have alternative names as well. Here's what they are:

MTV
Latch-Key
Slacker
13th
Baby Busters
(due to their small size like their parents, the Silents)

Gen Z even has other names like Plurals, Centennials, Homeland, Digital and New Silents (turns out they share many traits as their Gparents). So yeah, having a letter in a generation is not only laziness, but also generic. They are only used just for a placeholder until the cohort is more known to the world.

Yeah, Alphas would be after Plurals considering the majority of them are the children of Millennials.


Slackers is a name I do hear from time to time. Although I fear that Gen Xers would be insulted if I called them that. Baby Busters (or just Busters) could also work. And I also find it interesting how Plurals actually share many trains as their Gran parents. It's as if generation members are reincarnated and form a new generation. But anyways I prefer to give generations a name instead of just a letter. Names have meaning to them. For example Baby Boomers are called that due to the massive boom in birthrates during their generation span. According to a website I read  a while back Plurals are given their name due to being the first generation with a wide diversity in demographic in terms of race, religion, sexual preference, ethnic groups ("Plural" means "more than one" or "many" which goes with the idea of diversity).

Using actual names is better than just using letters as they have meaning. I'm not sure who Gen X is given an "X" or why Gen Y and Z have  been given a "Y" and "Z". I wonder why they skipped all the other letters and just went to XYZ and not ABC.  ???  I'm not entirely sure why Gen Alpha is called Gen Alpha, but it's better than just calling it Gen A (which doesn't make sense since A doesn't come after Z).


Slightly OT, but anyone notice the weird suggestions one gets when they type in this site's name in Google?

http://i.imgur.com/JFFfJ1I.png

PerC I can understand, because that site shares users with this one. But what does The 100 have to do with this site? Are people here big fans of that show? :P


I guess those who discuss about generational topics also like to watch The 100.  ???


I tend to pronounce "00s" as "oh-ohs". :P Most other people prefer "noughties" or "aughts", however.


I just call it "Two Thousands", but I do use the "oh-ohs" pronunciation for the years. I say "Twenty oh Three (20-0-3/2003)" or "Twenty oh nine (20-0-9/2009).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/10/16 at 5:52 pm


I thought it was called InThe00s, because the site was around since the 2000s decade. Especially when it was the modern site at the time. Same with how InThe70s, InThe80s, and InThe90s were made, but for nostalgic reasons.
Well it's actually existed since the 90s. If you look at the introduction, it states this site began as an 80s site, but it expanded to other decades over time. As for the others, yeah they were definitely made for nostalgic purposes. ;D


Slackers is a name I do hear from time to time. Although I fear that Gen Xers would be insulted if I called them that. Baby Busters (or just Busters) could also work. And I also find it interesting how Plurals actually share many trains as their Gran parents. It's as if generation members are reincarnated and form a new generation. But anyways I prefer to give generations a name instead of just a letter. Names have meaning to them. For example Baby Boomers are called that due to the massive boom in birthrates during their generation span. According to a website I read  a while back Plurals are given their name due to being the first generation with a wide diversity in demographic in terms of race, religion, sexual preference, ethnic groups ("Plural" means "more than one" or "many" which goes with the idea of diversity).

Using actual names is better than just using letters as they have meaning. I'm not sure who Gen X is given an "X" or why Gen Y and Z have  been given a "Y" and "Z". I wonder why they skipped all the other letters and just went to XYZ and not ABC.  ???  I'm not entirely sure why Gen Alpha is called Gen Alpha, but it's better than just calling it Gen A (which doesn't make sense since A doesn't come after Z).
Well, you can call them the MTV generation since they were obsessed with the network back then and they grew up with it.

Yeah, I read something like that as well. If they're the most current diverse generation right now, just imagine how much diversity the Alpha and Beta cohorts will be? I even read that Plurals are the last generation to have a white majority and that Caucasians will be a minority by 2043. That means the Alphas and so forth will have a majority of Hispanics and other minorities as the main population.

The reason for Gen Xs name is that they represent an unknown quantity. (Look at it like math where X is used for an unknown number)

Yeah, names absolutely having a meaning. That's how each generation gets one because of their traits, events and other miscellaneous.

As for Y and Z, they were just placeholders until the generation was known more about in the world.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/10/16 at 5:57 pm


I tend to pronounce "00s" as "oh-ohs". :P Most other people prefer "noughties" or "aughts", however.


Same! Aughts/Naughties is British, although we do use "naught" in Physics, but not in its plural form.


I just call it "Two Thousands", but I do use the "oh-ohs" pronunciation for the years. I say "Twenty oh Three (20-0-3/2003)" or "Twenty oh nine (20-0-9/2009).


That would confuse the hell out of me ;D

InThe00s = In the oh-ohs
2000s = Two thousands
00s = ooze

;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/10/16 at 6:12 pm


Well it's actually existed since the 90s. If you look at the introduction, it states this site began as an 80s site, but it expanded to other decades over time. As for the others, yeah they were definitely made for nostalgic purposes. ;D


I bet this was a Y2K site, since the earliest posts that were around on the site (even before April 2004) have been about the new millennium and stuff. Along with 80s nostalgia.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/10/16 at 6:22 pm


I bet this was a Y2K site, since the earliest posts that were around on the site (even before April 2004) have been about the new millennium and stuff. Along with 80s nostalgia.
Yep. The oldest posts date back to 1998 which I can understand why 80s nostalgia was almost in full swing.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/10/16 at 9:32 pm


Yeah, that's because the first event that powerfully impacted Millennials was the Columbine Shooting while the rest follows through. The Lewinsky scandal was the last to generally affect Gen Xers considering most of them were following the case despite some Millennials witnessing it. So yeah, you could say 1997 was definitely the transition since one of the major events was Princess Diana's death and her funeral and the rest was pop culturally regrading movies, TV shows and music.

The events that affect the Plurals is everything that happening right now, but that's only just the beginning. As for the Y/Z pop culture transition, I think it's almost done. I honestly believe most of it is not targeted towards Millennials anymore since nearly all of them are over the college age. However, that still doesn't mean that they can't like the Centennial (another term for Z) pop culture.
Well you have to remember, Princess Diana's death and the Clinton scandal were events that impacted Millennials, but not greatly as much as the Xers. That's why I say 1997 was the first year especially since the transition from X to Y pop culture was significant.


Good point about Columbine. I would actually go so far as to say that Columbine (as the first school shooting to get widespread media attention) was the first major event that impact Millennials even more than it did Xers. The K-12 "span" of the 1998-99 school year was 1981ers-1993ers, which is almost entirely Gen Y. Most Xers were in college or beyond by April 1999, and thus wouldn't have been quite as impacted by it as Yers, since we still had to go to school at the time.

Agree about the death of Princess Diana and the Lewinsky scandal being the last major events that impacted Xers more than Yers, too. I can remember both quite well, but they honestly didn't mean much to me at the time. During the Lewinsky scandal, I was old enough to understand that the President had cheated on his wife, and that he was in trouble for doing it, but I don't think I grasped the full impact of it until I was a few years older.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/11/16 at 12:55 pm


Good point about Columbine. I would actually go so far as to say that Columbine (as the first school shooting to get widespread media attention) was the first major event that impact Millennials even more than it did Xers. The K-12 "span" of the 1998-99 school year was 1981ers-1993ers, which is almost entirely Gen Y. Most Xers were in college or beyond by April 1999, and thus wouldn't have been quite as impacted by it as Yers, since we still had to go to school at the time.

Agree about the death of Princess Diana and the Lewinsky scandal being the last major events that impacted Xers more than Yers, too. I can remember both quite well, but they honestly didn't mean much to me at the time. During the Lewinsky scandal, I was old enough to understand that the President had cheated on his wife, and that he was in trouble for doing it, but I don't think I grasped the full impact of it until I was a few years older.
Oh yeah, I feel ya. I'm sure many of us were scared just to back to school after that event despite the year almost being over. So if Columbine was the first event to have a significance on the Millennials, that means the 2000 election was the first election to have a huge imprint on Echo Boomers (another term for Gen Y) than Xers with the next 5 being 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. I can see totally see the 2024 election being having a large effect on the Plurals than the Millennials by then considering that the former will be in their teens and 20s while latter will be in their 30s and 40s.

Yeah, I felt the same way about both of those events. Despite the older cohort and a few of the younger ones being able to recall those events, it didn't have a huge impact on them like the Xers.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/12/16 at 12:56 pm

You guys really should check out these threads. They are so hilarious, and it had me dying ;D :D ;D :D

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=17836.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=17997.0#top

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=22205.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=19807.0#top

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=16999.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=17679.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=19805.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=16297.0#top

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/12/16 at 2:05 pm


You guys really should check out these threads. They are so hilarious, and it had me dying ;D :D ;D :D

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=17836.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=17997.0#top

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=22205.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=19807.0#top

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=16999.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=17679.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=19805.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=16297.0#top


Those threads seem rather unorthodox to our standards. Considering that most of us here are 2000s kids, it seemed way different when 80s and 90s kids ruled this site. By the way, if you're reading this machinehead, I despise 2010s music and love 2000s music.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/12/16 at 3:28 pm


Those threads seem rather unorthodox to our standards. Considering that most of us here are 2000s kids, it seemed way different when 80s and 90s kids ruled this site. By the way, if you're reading this machinehead, I despise 2010s music and love 2000s music.
But they were talking about the same subjects we're discussing right now, so it's pretty much the same thing.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/12/16 at 4:26 pm


But they were talking about the same subjects we're discussing right now, so it's pretty much the same thing.


Yeah, but it seems kinda outdated for what we talk about.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/12/16 at 4:40 pm


Yeah, but it seems kinda outdated for what we talk about.
Well, if you want to know, these discussions have been occurring since the 90s. Yeah, you heard me. Even Gen X has done it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/12/16 at 4:43 pm


Well, if you want to know, these discussions have been occurring since the 90s. Yeah, you heard me. Even Gen X has done it.


They've been talking about Gen Z since the 90s? How? Most of the message boards at the time were very primitive, and they weren't worth reading before the early 2000s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/12/16 at 4:50 pm


They've been talking about Gen Z since the 90s? How? Most of the message boards at the time were very primitive, and they weren't worth reading before the early 2000s.
Ohhhhh no no no. I mean they were talking when Gen X began and ended. But yeah, they have been talking about Gen Z since the mid 2000s which was way too early since there was a conclusion on when the Millennials ended.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/12/16 at 4:54 pm


Ohhhhh no no no. I mean they were talking when Gen X began and ended. But yeah, they have been talking about Gen Z since the mid 2000s which was way too early since there was a conclusion on when the Millennials ended.


Oh. That makes sense. Gen Z was somehow there since the 2000s, so I could consider that as okay.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/12/16 at 5:04 pm


Oh. That makes sense. Gen Z was somehow there since the 2000s, so I could consider that as okay.
Yeah, if you look at older posts, you'll see that they were cutting off Millennials around the early 90s, but now it seems to be between 1995 and 2000.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/12/16 at 5:12 pm


Yeah, if you look at older posts, you'll see that they were cutting off Millennials around the early 90s, but now it seems to be between 1995 and 2000.


I wonder why these people choose 1995-1999 to be part of Gen Z?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/12/16 at 5:31 pm


I wonder why these people choose 1995-1999 to be part of Gen Z?
It's a variety of reasons. Back in in 2006, when the group were between 7 and 11, most were still in elementary, so that's one. Two, they most likely could not remember 9/11 or the Y2K countdown. Three, The Millennial generation were believed to begin in the late 70s. Four, some folks thought the Z culture would begin in the late 00s as they thought the Millennial's would end after 2006. Five, they also knew that in 2012, they would not be able to vote for whoever was going for president due to still being under 18 by then.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/12/16 at 9:06 pm


You guys really should check out these threads. They are so hilarious, and it had me dying ;D :D ;D :D

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=17836.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=17997.0#top

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=22205.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=19807.0#top

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=16999.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=17679.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=19805.0

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=16297.0#top


Man, I posted alot back then. ;D

Also, pretty much all those posters are gone now except me. :(


By the way, if you're reading this machinehead, I despise 2010s music and love 2000s music.


Damn, another wrong prediction! ;D


It's a variety of reasons. Back in in 2006, when the group were between 7 and 11, most were still in elementary, so that's one. Two, they most likely could not remember 9/11 or the Y2K countdown. Three, The Millennial generation were believed to begin in the late 70s. Four, some folks thought the Z culture would begin in the late 00s as they thought the Millennial's would end after 2006. Five, they also knew that in 2012, they would not be able to vote for whoever was going for president due to still being under 18 by then.


It is interesting how it's shifted since 2006. Back then, it seemed to be pretty much a consensus on this board that anybody born after 1994 was solid Gen Z, whereas most people now consider those born at least up to 1996 as late Y.

I agree with you that age is the number one reason. Back in 2006, I wouldn't have perceived a kid born in 1995 as being in the same generation as me because they seemed so much younger just being 10-11 at the time. Now that they're young adults, though, I don't have any problem seeing them as late Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/12/16 at 9:12 pm


Damn, another wrong prediction! ;D


Oh, and I also used to have a VCR until my dad threw it out in early 2009. Something that your old friends should've noticed.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/12/16 at 9:14 pm

It's quite interesting how people see an age group as time moves by. It's happening as of right now with Gen alpha. It's debated on where Gen Alpha has started and I'm not sure on when people would have a (mostly agreed upon) decision on where it ended.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/12/16 at 9:19 pm


Oh, and I also used to have a VCR until my dad threw it out in early 2009. Something that your old friends should've noticed.


Yeah, I thought that was kinda dumb that some folks were suggesting that anybody born after 1993 had no experience using a VCR. I mean, it was still a more popular format than DVD until, like, 2003.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/12/16 at 9:25 pm


Yeah, I thought that was kinda dumb that some folks were suggesting that anybody born after 1993 had no experience using a VCR. I mean, it was still a more popular format than DVD until, like, 2003.


Well yeah, even though 1993-1997 babies were about 6-10 years old when VCRs were starting to die out in 2003 as you mentioned. I think anyone born after 2002 has no experience watching a movie on a VHS tape, unless they saw one from their grandparents' attics or something. However, they'll just think of it as an ancient piece of technology to describe it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 08/12/16 at 9:50 pm


It's quite interesting how people see an age group as time moves by. It's happening as of right now with Gen alpha. It's debated on where Gen Alpha has started and I'm not sure on when people would have a (mostly agreed upon) decision on where it ended.


Gen Alpha will probably start anywhere from 2024 to 2026

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/12/16 at 9:54 pm


Gen Alpha will probably start anywhere from 2024 to 2026


Wait wait. You do you mean "end" somewhere in the mid 2020s? I though Alphas started sometime in the 2010s unless you're saying that Gen Plurals is still going on now.

Speaking of Alphas I wonder on what the life of the 2nd Digital natives will be like compared to the 1st.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 08/12/16 at 9:57 pm


Wait wait. You do you mean "end" somewhere in the mid 2020s? I though Alphas started sometime in the 2010s unless you're saying that Gen Plurals is still going on now.

Speaking of Alphas I wonder on what the life of the 2nd Digital natives will be like compared to the 1st.


No, I mean start. I think Gen Z will probably be from like 2005 to 2022 at the earliest. Until 2026 at the latest.

I think Gen Alpha will be like the second coming of baby boomers.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/12/16 at 11:31 pm


Well yeah, even though 1993-1997 babies were about 6-10 years old when VCRs were starting to die out in 2003 as you mentioned. I think anyone born after 2002 has no experience watching a movie on a VHS tape, unless they saw one from their grandparents' attics or something. However, they'll just think of it as an ancient piece of technology to describe it.


I got my DVD player in mid or late 2003, so I associate almost my entire childhood with VHS. What's funny is while I bought a lot of DVDs when I was 11/12, I learnt how to pirate movies in 2005, so it's hard for me to consider DVDs a huge part of my life, at all ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/13/16 at 12:51 am


It is interesting how it's shifted since 2006. Back then, it seemed to be pretty much a consensus on this board that anybody born after 1994 was solid Gen Z, whereas most people now consider those born at least up to 1996 as late Y.

I agree with you that age is the number one reason. Back in 2006, I wouldn't have perceived a kid born in 1995 as being in the same generation as me because they seemed so much younger just being 10-11 at the time. Now that they're young adults, though, I don't have any problem seeing them as late Y.

Aww... thanks buddy! ;) ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/13/16 at 1:04 am


Man, I posted alot back then. ;D

Also, pretty much all those posters are gone now except me. :(

It is interesting how it's shifted since 2006. Back then, it seemed to be pretty much a consensus on this board that anybody born after 1994 was solid Gen Z, whereas most people now consider those born at least up to 1996 as late Y.

I agree with you that age is the number one reason. Back in 2006, I wouldn't have perceived a kid born in 1995 as being in the same generation as me because they seemed so much younger just being 10-11 at the time. Now that they're young adults, though, I don't have any problem seeing them as late Y.
You sure did and now you don't post as much as you used to.

I know! It's crazy how they left you behind. I wonder why they haven't returned other than the ones who got banned or deactivated their account?

Yeah, I see. Heck, some folks even thought to end the Millennial generation at 1992 when we know that's not even close to being true ;D ;D. But yeah, I can totally see 1996 or 1998 be the youngest Yers.

Looking at this, I see that you have a large age span of who you can relate with. Do you see people from 1995 and 1996 as little peer buddies?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/13/16 at 1:06 am

I've said this before in an earlier post... But I still wonder If I was born in October of 1994, how I would be viewed?? :o :o :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/13/16 at 1:39 am


I've said this before in an earlier post... But I still wonder If I was born in October of 1994, how I would be viewed?? :o :o :o
Still a Millennial. The generation either ends at 1996 or 1998.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/13/16 at 1:47 am


Still a Millennial. The generation either ends at 1996 or 1998.

I'd go with 1998 as the earliest and 2000 as the latest....

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/13/16 at 1:55 am


I'd go with 1998 as the earliest and 2000 as the latest....
Same here!! I really feel that 1998 will be the last year for a Millennial, but it could end up being 2000.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/13/16 at 10:01 am


I've said this before in an earlier post... But I still wonder If I was born in October of 1994, how I would be viewed?? :o :o :o


You would still be an early 2000s kid, and that you would've remembered some of the 90s more. I don't know what to choose for 1993-1995 babies, since they were somehow kids in 1998-2000, and that's when the late 90s culture was still prevailed. Unlike 1996-2000 babies, when they were obviously 2000s kids, it's a bit confusing to just know what they were as kids, unless you were born at that time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/13/16 at 9:30 pm


Aww... thanks buddy! ;) ;D


Some people would consider being called a part of Gen Y an insult. ;D


You sure did and now you don't post as much as you used to.


I was in college back then. I had alot more free time on my hands. ;D


I know! It's crazy how they left you behind. I wonder why they haven't returned other than the ones who got banned or deactivated their account?


I believe alot of those posters left during the Great Decadeology Wars in 2006-07. I think at least a few of them stuck around until the early '10s, though.


Looking at this, I see that you have a large age span of who you can relate with. Do you see people from 1995 and 1996 as little peer buddies?


Yes, I would say I see them as peers. Somewhat like younger brothers/sisters I guess you could say. I am only 8/9 years older than them, after all. When they were kids in the early '00s I was still a young teenager myself, playing games on my N64 and PS1, and watching Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network occasionally, so we do share some common experiences.

I feel like I can relate at least reasonably well with people born up through 1996. Past that, though, and the age gap just starts getting a bit too large.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 08/13/16 at 9:42 pm


Some people would consider being called a part of Gen Y an insult. ;D

I was in college back then. I had alot more free time on my hands. ;D

I believe alot of those posters left during the Great Decadeology Wars in 2006-07. I think at least a few of them stuck around until the early '10s, though.

Yes, I would say I see them as peers. Somewhat like younger brothers/sisters I guess you could say. I am only 8/9 years older than them, after all. When they were kids in the early '00s I was still a young teenager myself, playing games on my N64 and PS1, and watching Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network occasionally, so we do share some common experiences.

I feel like I can relate at least reasonably well with people born up through 1996. Past that, though, and the age gap just starts getting a bit too large.

What's the oldest you can relate to?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/13/16 at 10:02 pm


What's the oldest you can relate to?

For me, early 80s born are the eldest I can relate to.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 08/13/16 at 10:21 pm

What would I be a part of being born in January 1999?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/13/16 at 10:48 pm


What's the oldest you can relate to?


I can relate to early '80s babies well enough. I watched some of the same kids shows they did (like Ducktales, Real Ghostbusters, Alvin & the Chipmunks, etc.) as a kid in the early '90s, and the NES was the first video game console I ever played. I also started getting into music and pop culture in the mid-to-late '90s while they were still in high school, so there's some crossover there. Anybody born before 1980, though, really starts to feel like a different generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 08/14/16 at 1:27 am


Same here!! I really feel that 1998 will be the last year for a Millennial, but it could end up being 2000.


Which it should be, in my opinion. It would be ridiculous for 1999 to be the start of a new generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/14/16 at 6:38 pm


You would still be an early 2000s kid, and that you would've remembered some of the 90s more. I don't know what to choose for 1993-1995 babies, since they were somehow kids in 1998-2000, and that's when the late 90s culture was still prevailed. Unlike 1996-2000 babies, when they were obviously 2000s kids, it's a bit confusing to just know what they were as kids, unless you were born at that time.
He was asking would he be a Millennial or a Plural had he been born a year earlier, not which (insert decade) kid would he be. ;D


Some people would consider being called a part of Gen Y an insult. ;D

I was in college back then. I had alot more free time on my hands. ;D

I believe alot of those posters left during the Great Decadeology Wars in 2006-07. I think at least a few of them stuck around until the early '10s, though.

Yes, I would say I see them as peers. Somewhat like younger brothers/sisters I guess you could say. I am only 8/9 years older than them, after all. When they were kids in the early '00s I was still a young teenager myself, playing games on my N64 and PS1, and watching Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network occasionally, so we do share some common experiences.

I feel like I can relate at least reasonably well with people born up through 1996. Past that, though, and the age gap just starts getting a bit too large.
The only folks who do that are those who want to be part of the Gen X cohort so badly and don't want to be associated with this generation. They need to realize that they are not Xers for many reasons.

Oh, that's something I understand. Do you still have lots of free time right now?

Have you seen them on other sites you go on?

Yeah that's something I feel about the same way. However, for me it's different. I actually don't see those late 70s folks as parents despite the large age gap. Instead, I see them as peers, but older ones.


What would I be a part of being born in January 1999?
Well you're undecided. You're either one of the youngest Millennials or one of the oldest Plurals.


Which it should be, in my opinion. It would be ridiculous for 1999 to be the start of a new generation.
I know how you feel, but honestly it might not even be 1999. It could be a little earlier for a variety of reasons. You have to look at the events that impacted Millennials on a large scale along with the other factors.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/14/16 at 7:03 pm


He was asking would he be a Millennial or a Plural had he been born a year earlier, not which (insert decade) kid would he be. ;D


Oh, he would still be a Millennial if he would be born in 1994.  :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/14/16 at 7:06 pm


Oh, he would still be a Millennial if he would be born in 1994.  :P
Yeah, he would be, but he's still one no matter what. I can honestly see this generation ending either in 1996 or 1998 since there are variety of reasons given here, in articles and by sociologists.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/14/16 at 9:07 pm


I've said this before in an earlier post... But I still wonder If I was born in October of 1994, how I would be viewed?? :o :o :o


The real question is if I was born 6 weeks earlier in December 1992, would I be considered a '90s kid? 🙏

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/15/16 at 4:10 pm


The real question is if I was born 6 weeks earlier in December 1992, would I be considered a '90s kid? 🙏


Well 1992 born are hybrid late 1990s/early 2000s in my opinion. But it's up to you, I suppose. To me 6 weeks isn't much of a difference as you still would've been grouped up with early-mid 1993 born when it came to kid culture and who you'd interact with in schools. Or at least that's how it'd be here in America. Not sure about Canada.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/15/16 at 4:14 pm


Well 1992 born are hybrid late 1990s/early 2000s in my opinion. But it's up to you, I suppose. To me 6 weeks isn't much of a difference as you still would've been grouped up with early-mid 1993 born when it came to kid culture and who you'd interact with in schools. Or at least that's how it'd be here in America. Not sure about Canada.


Well, 1993 babies are a little bit of 90s kids. They were 5 in 1998, and 6 in 1999. Although, the other four years spent in their childhood are in the early 2000s. So.. yeah.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/15/16 at 4:19 pm


The real question is if I was born 6 weeks earlier in December 1992, would I be considered a '90s kid? 🙏



Well 1992 born are hybrid late 1990s/early 2000s in my opinion. But it's up to you, I suppose. To me 6 weeks isn't much of a difference as you still would've been grouped up with early-mid 1993 born when it came to kid culture and who you'd interact with in schools. Or at least that's how it'd be here in America. Not sure about Canada.
Yeah, Slowpoke would be a 90s kid even though he is already one, but Eric was asking about generations, not (insert decade) kid since he was tired of some people lumping him as a Plural.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/15/16 at 5:35 pm


Yeah, Slowpoke would be a 90s kid even though he is already one, but Eric was asking about generations, not (insert decade) kid since he was tired of some people lumping him as a Plural.


1995 is more of a cusps year. How I see it 1995-1999/2000 are cusps. But within that range certain years would lean on one side. Someone from 1997 would be a Millennial/Plural hybrid. Someone from 1995 would be a bit a mix of Millennial and a Plural, but they'd more on the Millennial side than the Plural.  Someone from 2000 would be the vice versa of the 1995. If any of this makes sense.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 08/15/16 at 7:28 pm


Well 1992 born are hybrid late 1990s/early 2000s in my opinion. But it's up to you, I suppose. To me 6 weeks isn't much of a difference as you still would've been grouped up with early-mid 1993 born when it came to kid culture and who you'd interact with in schools. Or at least that's how it'd be here in America. Not sure about Canada.

He'd be a cross between the average 1992er and 1993er. He's just as far away from someone born in the middle of 1993 as someone born in the middle of 1992.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/15/16 at 9:21 pm


Well, 1993 babies are a little bit of 90s kids. They were 5 in 1998, and 6 in 1999. Although, the other four years spent in their childhood are in the early 2000s. So.. yeah.


Lol I was joking (sorta)  ;D

1998 and especially 1999 weren't all that different from the early 2000s anyway.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/15/16 at 10:19 pm


1995 is more of a cusps year. How I see it 1995-1999/2000 are cusps. But within that range certain years would lean on one side. Someone from 1997 would be a Millennial/Plural hybrid. Someone from 1995 would be a bit a mix of Millennial and a Plural, but they'd more on the Millennial side than the Plural.  Someone from 2000 would be the vice versa of the 1995. If any of this makes sense.
Same here! I feel that the 1995-97 group lean more Millennial while the 1998-2000 group lean more Plural. OTT, they are all totally in the cusp zone.


He'd be a cross between the average 1992er and 1993er. He's just as far away from someone born in the middle of 1993 as someone born in the middle of 1992.
Would that make him more of a hybrid?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/15/16 at 11:02 pm

I found this to be a somewhat interesting video. I wonder if it's common for late '90s babies to have never played Sonic the Hedgehog before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLfYa47XliM

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/15/16 at 11:04 pm


I found this to be a somewhat interesting video. I wonder if it's common for late '90s babies to have never played Sonic the Hedgehog before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLfYa47XliM
Are they serious? ??? I'm sure they have played Sonic before after the Sega days, just not when he was very popular though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/15/16 at 11:11 pm

Mario & Sonic at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games and the Smash Bros. series are the only 5 million+ sellers I can think of that came out after 2004.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/15/16 at 11:21 pm


Mario & Sonic at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games and the Smash Bros. series are the only 5 million+ sellers I can think of that came out after 2004.
What about Sonic Heroes? I know for sure they can remember that game despite barely coming out in early 2004. And then there's Unleashed which was released in 2008.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/15/16 at 11:25 pm


What about Sonic Heroes? I know for sure they can remember that game despite barely coming out in early 2004. And then there's Unleashed which was released in 2008.


That wouldn't be after 2004 ;)

I don't think Sonic Unleashed sold very well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/15/16 at 11:34 pm


That wouldn't be after 2004 ;)

I don't think Sonic Unleashed sold very well.
But I'm sure they have played Sonic games before 2004. ;) I mean, you had the Sonic Advances series for GBA.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/15/16 at 11:51 pm


But I'm sure they have played Sonic games before 2004. ;) I mean, you had the Sonic Advances series for GBA.


Sonic Advance 3 came out in 2004 though. GBA was still selling decently in 2005, but I think after late 2004, most parents would have bought a DS for their kids. I think Sonic Rush sold pretty well though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/16/16 at 12:05 am


Sonic Advance 3 came out in 2004 though. GBA was still selling decently in 2005, but I think after late 2004, most parents would have bought a DS for their kids. I think Sonic Rush sold pretty well though.
See? I knew they would have known who Sonic was long before 2004. I mean they were already at the age where they could play games and know where to go. So yeah, I can see the SA GBA series be a good start for them (unless they had one of the SA games for the DC) and then following everything that was Sonic related on the DS.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 12:07 am


See? I knew they would have known who Sonic was long before 2004. I mean they were already at the age where they could play games and know where to go. So yeah, I can see the SA GBA series be a good start for them (unless they had one of the SA games for the DC) and then following everything that was Sonic related on the DS.


These guys obviously haven't played 2D Sonic though  :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/16/16 at 12:25 am


These guys obviously haven't played 2D Sonic though  :-X
But they did. The Sonic Advance series is 2D.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/16/16 at 12:31 am


1995 is more of a cusps year. How I see it 1995-1999/2000 are cusps. But within that range certain years would lean on one side. Someone from 1997 would be a Millennial/Plural hybrid. Someone from 1995 would be a bit a mix of Millennial and a Plural, but they'd more on the Millennial side than the Plural.  Someone from 2000 would be the vice versa of the 1995. If any of this makes sense.

But how would you view me if I was born on October of 1994 instead of October of 1995?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/16/16 at 12:33 am


The real question is if I was born 6 weeks earlier in December 1992, would I be considered a '90s kid? 🙏

If you were born in Jan 1992 instead of Jan 1993, you'd be a ultimate late 90s and early 00s hybrid.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/16/16 at 12:37 am


Well, 1993 babies are a little bit of 90s kids. They were 5 in 1998, and 6 in 1999. Although, the other four years spent in their childhood are in the early 2000s. So.. yeah.

Yeah, 93 born are ''partial'' late 90s, even though their mostly early 00s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 12:41 am


But they did. The Sonic Advance series is 2D.

I was talking about the people in the video. Sonic Advance 3 came out in 2004, when these guys were toddlers or in kindergarten. I don't remember that one being as popular as the first two either. The first one was really popular, the second one was the best in the series, three was just kind of there lol.

They (as in late 90s babies, not the people in the video) could have played Sonic Rush. The DS was really popular among Gen Z. I think it sold better than Sonic Advance too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/16/16 at 12:43 am

As a mid 90s baby, I was exposed to Sonic 1 and 2 in 2001. Thanks to my Uncle still having his genesis. After that I got into the advanced series.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/16/16 at 7:45 am

I've owned a Gameboy Advance SP and a Nintendo DS/Lite. I'm gonna be honest though, if you take your rose colored glasses off, you'll realize that the Nintendo DS has aged a lot better than the Gameboy Advance when it comes to variety of games, quality of games and the features it had. The Nintendo DS Lite was the absolute peak of Nintendo handheld consoles. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the 3DS has done better too, despite being lower in sells. There's a reason the original Nintendo DS/Lite is the best selling Nintendo platform of all time, the best selling handheld console of all time, and the 2nd best selling video game console of all time behind the Playstation 2.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/16/16 at 7:54 am


I found this to be a somewhat interesting video. I wonder if it's common for late '90s babies to have never played Sonic the Hedgehog before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLfYa47XliM


Well, late 90's babies were around age 7-9 when Sonic 06 came out, so it's no surprise they didn't grow up with the classic Sega and Sonic eras from the 90's. Heck, I was born in 1996, and I was only in pre-K when the Sega Dreamcast was discontinued (6th gen gaming hadn't even entered its prime yet). So I never got to experience Sonic's golden age. Mario on the other hand though, while it did go through a slight slump throughout the Gamecube and Gameboy Advance era, it still had many exciting games for the Gamecube and Gameboy Advance being made for its own company (Nintendo). Games like Mario Kart Double Dash, Super Mario Sunshine (although inferior), Luigi's Mansion, and Mario Party 4 were fun. Super Mario Advance 1-4 were remakes of classic Mario games from the late 80's and 90's. Mario still went with its own formula and didn't make the same mistake that Sonic did. Then by 2006 & 2007, the Mario franchise went through a Renaissance Age by making New Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Galaxy, which were extremely fun for its time. The only problem is that the New Super Mario Bros. series has kept Nintendo lazy since barely any additions to the game has changed ever since, and thanks to my experience of New Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Galaxy, I went on the Wii Virtual Console and downloaded all the classic Mario games from 1985-1996, like the original Super Mario Bros 1-3, Super Mario Bros Lost Levels (hard af), Super Mario World, and Super Mario 64. Beat almost all of the games 100%.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 10:25 am


I've owned a Gameboy Advance SP and a Nintendo DS/Lite. I'm gonna be honest though, if you take your rose colored glasses off, you'll realize that the Nintendo DS has aged a lot better than the Gameboy Advance when it comes to variety of games, quality of games and the features it had. The Nintendo DS Lite was the absolute peak of Nintendo handheld consoles. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the 3DS has done better too, despite being lower in sells. There's a reason the original Nintendo DS/Lite is the best selling Nintendo platform of all time, the best selling handheld console of all time, and the 2nd best selling video game console of all time behind the Playstation 2.


I don't think anyone would dispute that. The DS is king!  8) I own so many games for it, the system has so many hidden gems!


Well, late 90's babies were around age 7-9 when Sonic 06 came out, so it's no surprise they didn't grow up with the classic Sega and Sonic eras from the 90's. Heck, I was born in 1996, and I was only in pre-K when the Sega Dreamcast was discontinued (6th gen gaming hadn't even entered its prime yet). So I never got to experience Sonic's golden age. Mario on the other hand though, while it did go through a slight slump throughout the Gamecube and Gameboy Advance era, it still had many exciting games for the Gamecube and Gameboy Advance being made for its own company (Nintendo). Games like Mario Kart Double Dash, Super Mario Sunshine (although inferior), Luigi's Mansion, and Mario Party 4 were fun. Super Mario Advance 1-4 were remakes of classic Mario games from the late 80's and 90's. Mario still went with its own formula and didn't make the same mistake that Sonic did. Then by 2006 & 2007, the Mario franchise went through a Renaissance Age by making New Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Galaxy, which were extremely fun for its time. The only problem is that the New Super Mario Bros. series has kept Nintendo lazy since barely any additions to the game has changed ever since, and thanks to my experience of New Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Galaxy, I went on the Wii Virtual Console and downloaded all the classic Mario games from 1985-1996, like the original Super Mario Bros 1-3, Super Mario Bros Lost Levels (hard af), Super Mario World, and Super Mario 64. Beat almost all of the games 100%.


Sonic Adventure 1/2 for the Gamecube came out in 2002/2003, and Sonic Mega Collection also came out 2002. I think people your age could have still experienced some silver age Sonic.

Golden age Mario is more subjective, he's arguably still there with classic titles like Super Mario 3D Land/World and Super Mario Maker coming out recently. I always trust Nintendo to make a good Mario game. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 11:42 am


I don't think anyone would dispute that. The GBA is king!  8) I own so many games for it, the system has so many hidden gems!


Noticed a slight error in your post. I took the job of fixing it.  8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 12:36 pm


Noticed a slight error in your post. I took the job of fixing it.  8)


I think the GBA has about ~30 must own games. The DS has about 120-150. The 3DS has about 30-40 good games at the moment, it's already surpassed the GBA :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/16/16 at 1:59 pm


I was talking about the people in the video. Sonic Advance 3 came out in 2004, when these guys were toddlers or in kindergarten. I don't remember that one being as popular as the first two either. The first one was really popular, the second one was the best in the series, three was just kind of there lol.

They (as in late 90s babies, not the people in the video) could have played Sonic Rush. The DS was really popular among Gen Z. I think it sold better than Sonic Advance too.
Ohhh, but still. I'm sure their first encounter with Sonic was the Advance series then Sonic rush and so on.

As for the DS, yeah I can see that being very popular with the Gen Z crowd with the GB series being in demand with the Gen Y folks.


As a mid 90s baby, I was exposed to Sonic 1 and 2 in 2001. Thanks to my Uncle still having his genesis. After that I got into the advanced series.
Really that late? :D I was first exposed to Sonic with the toys, cartoons (the 90s ones), and the games.


I've owned a Gameboy Advance SP and a Nintendo DS/Lite. I'm gonna be honest though, if you take your rose colored glasses off, you'll realize that the Nintendo DS has aged a lot better than the Gameboy Advance when it comes to variety of games, quality of games and the features it had. The Nintendo DS Lite was the absolute peak of Nintendo handheld consoles. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the 3DS has done better too, despite being lower in sells. There's a reason the original Nintendo DS/Lite is the best selling Nintendo platform of all time, the best selling handheld console of all time, and the 2nd best selling video game console of all time behind the Playstation 2.
That means the NES is #2 in the rankings of the Nintendo platforms and the SNES being #3.


Yeah, 93 born are ''partial'' late 90s, even though their mostly early 00s.
Are we talking about core childhood or the whole stage?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 4:37 pm

I think 2002 was the first time I played Sonic, with Sonic Adventure 2.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 5:46 pm


I think 2002 was the first time I played Sonic, with Sonic Adventure 2.


First time I ever got into Sonic was in 1997 with Sonic Jam on the Sega Saturn. The game was a compilation of the original 1,2,3,& Knuckles games. I remember watching Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog in 1995-1996, but overall in the 1990s my Sonic experience isn't much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 5:55 pm


I think the GBA has about ~30 must own games. The DS has about 120-150.


The fact that you don't appreciate the GBA makes me wanna hit you with a frying pan. HOW DARE YOU PREFER THE DS OVER THE GBA!  >:(

The 3DS has about 30-40 good games at the moment, it's already surpassed the GBA :P

Stop you're hurting me, bruh.  :(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 6:02 pm


Sonic Adventure 1/2 for the Gamecube came out in 2002/2003, and Sonic Mega Collection also came out 2002. I think people your age could have still experienced some silver age Sonic.

Golden age Mario is more subjective, he's arguably still there with classic titles like Super Mario 3D Land/World and Super Mario Maker coming out recently. I always trust Nintendo to make a good Mario game. ;D


To me Golden Age Sonic is from 1991-1995
- Sonic 1
- Sonic 2
- Sonic CD
- Sonic 3
- Sonic & Knuckles
- Knuckles Chaotix

Silver Age Sonic is 1996-2005.
- Sonic 3D Blast
- Sonic R
- Sonic Adventure
- Sonic Shuffle
- Sonic Adventure 2
- Sonic Advance
- Sonic Advance 2
- Sonic Heroes
- Sonic Battle
- Sonic Advance 3
- Shadow the Hedgehog
- Sonic Rush

Dark Age Sonic is 2006- (hopefully it ends this year)
- Sonic 06
- Sonic Rush Adventure
- Sonic Colors
- Sonic And the Secret Rings
- Sonic Unleashed
- Sonic and the Black Knight
- Sonic Generations
- Sonic Boom Rise of Lyric
- Sonic Lost World


Golden Age is classic era as Sonic was a huge cultural phenomenon. All his games widely praised. Silver Age is where are a few misses, but ultimately a decent era (my personal favorite in all honesty), and Sonic was still a bit of a cultural phenomenon around this time. And Dark age is where everything goes down hill (with some decent gems here and there).

As for Mario I can't really separate his games into good and bad eras. Nearly all Mario games are hits and praised so you could say that we're always in a golden era.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 6:22 pm


The fact that you don't appreciate the GBA makes me wanna hit you with a frying pan. HOW DARE YOU PREFER THE DS OVER THE GBA!  >:(

Stop you're hurting me, bruh.  :(


I appreciate the GBA, but I also recognize the DS's superiority :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 6:39 pm


I appreciate the GBA, but I also recognize the DS's superiority :P


DS was a decent handheld. I actually prefer the 3DS over the DS, but I think this is just us having difference preferences in games.  DS does have quite  few hidden gem. Only issue is that they're "hidden gems" meaning there a ton I or someone else won't know about unless we researched all day. I love World Ends with You for the DS, but I only knew about it because I saw an image of the cover art on Google images once. But World Ends with You, Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days, Spectrobes Beyond the Portals, and Sonic Rush are my favorite DS games.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/16/16 at 6:46 pm


As for Mario I can't really separate his games into good and bad eras. Nearly all Mario games are hits and praised so you could say that we're always in a golden era.


I disagree with this. I pretty much think the opposite of that, since there weren't a lot of good games for the Mario franchise in a while.

To me, Golden Age Mario is from 1985-1995 (by the way, I'm only focusing on the main and RPG series)
- Super Mario Bros.
- Super Mario Bros. 2
- Super Mario Bros. 3
- Super Mario Land (it was released after SMB3 in Japan)
- Super Mario World
- Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins
- Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 (this may be the first Wario Land installment, but I'm including it anyway)
- Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island
- Super Mario RPG


Silver Age Mario is from 1996-2010 (although no main and RPG games were released between 1997-1999)
- Super Mario 64
- Paper Mario
- Super Mario Sunshine
- Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga
- Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door
- Mario and Luigi: Partners In Time
- New Super Mario Bros.
- Super Mario Galaxy
- Super Paper Mario
- New Super Mario Bros. Wii
- Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
- Super Mario Galaxy 2

Mediocre Age Mario is 2011- (not as bad as Sonic's Dark Age, but it's not that great)
- Super Mario 3D Land
- New Super Mario Bros. 2 (the only good game in this age)
- New Super Mario Bros. U
- Super Mario 3D World
- Paper Mario: Sticker Star
- Mario and Luigi: Dream Team
- Super Mario Maker
- Mario and Luigi: Paper Jam

The other Mario games are like a different story to me, which is why I never put them on this list. Not to mention that they have the same pattern and formula since their first installments.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 7:03 pm

Again I find myself preferring the Silver Age of Mario. I'm more of a 3D Gamer in terms of preference. Golden Age was mainly 2D (aside from Mario 64 which is at the very end). The Modern Age of 2011 - Present is a bit meh to me. But only because I've grown tired of Mario. Most (if not all) the games are just glorified reskins of previous games. Paper Mario Color Splash is just Sticker Star (which sucked) 2, all New Super Mario Bros games are basically the same in terms of content, Super Mario 3D Land is alright, but very basic in terms of 3D Platformer gameplay when compared to Galaxy/Sunshine/64, and Super Mario 3D World is just 3D Land + New Super Mario Bros Wii for consoles. However, I did enjoy the Mario & Luigi RPGs games.

It's sad that Nintendo has even confirmed that they're forever gonna use the new Paper Mario Formula now (the style that started with Sticker Star) as they say that it would apparently be "redundant" that both the Mario & Luigi RPGs and the Paper Mario RPGs used similar forumlas like they did in the silver age. All this is nonsense and upsets me greatly.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/16/16 at 7:16 pm


Again I find myself preferring the Silver Age of Mario. I'm more of a 3D Gamer in terms of preference. Golden Age was mainly 2D (aside from Mario 64 which is at the very end).


I actually edited to the Silver Age, since SM64 doesn't really seem like a Golden Age game to me. I mean, all of the Golden Age games were mainly 2D. Especially the side games. So, the NES and SNES games are basically the Golden Age.

The Modern Age of 2011 - Present is a bit meh to me. But only because I've grown tired of Mario. Most (if not all) the games are just glorified reskins of previous games. Paper Mario Color Splash is just Sticker Star (which sucked) 2, all New Super Mario Bros games are basically the same in terms of content, Super Mario 3D Land is alright, but very basic in terms of 3D Platformer gameplay when compared to Galaxy/Sunshine/64, and Super Mario 3D World is just 3D Land + New Super Mario Bros Wii for consoles. However, I did enjoy the Mario & Luigi RPGs games.

This. All this. There's no other way of saying I agree with this, aside from the comment that I'm making.


It's sad that Nintendo has even confirmed that they're forever gonna use the new Paper Mario Formula now (the style that started with Sticker Star) as they say that it would apparently be "redundant" that both the Mario & Luigi RPGs and the Paper Mario RPGs used similar forumlas like they did in the silver age. All this is nonsense and upsets me greatly.


Welp, we're not gonna have a good Paper Mario game since Super Paper Mario then. That sucks, since I actually enjoyed the first three games. They were so cool and unique, which seemed like sequels towards Super Mario RPG (for the SNES), except that it's on a paper universe.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 7:24 pm


DS was a decent handheld. I actually prefer the 3DS over the DS, but I think this is just us having difference preferences in games.  DS does have quite  few hidden gem. Only issue is that they're "hidden gems" meaning there a ton I or someone else won't know about unless we researched all day. I love World Ends with You for the DS, but I only knew about it because I saw an image of the cover art on Google images once. But World Ends with You, Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days, Spectrobes Beyond the Portals, and Sonic Rush are my favorite DS games.


That game was awesome! I didn't like Kingdom Hearts though  :-X But I was never too into KH anyway.

I own over a 100 DS games. It's hard to pick a favourite :o


I disagree with this. I pretty much think the opposite of that, since there weren't a lot of good games for the Mario franchise in a while.

To me, Golden Age Mario is from 1985-1995 (by the way, I'm only focusing on the main and RPG series)
- Super Mario Bros.
- Super Mario Bros. 2
- Super Mario Bros. 3
- Super Mario Land (it was released after SMB3 in Japan)
- Super Mario World
- Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins
- Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 (this may be the first Wario Land installment, but I'm including it anyway)
- Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island
- Super Mario RPG


Silver Age Mario is from 1996-2010 (although no main and RPG games were released between 1997-1999)
- Super Mario 64
- Paper Mario
- Super Mario Sunshine
- Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga
- Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door
- Mario and Luigi: Partners In Time
- New Super Mario Bros.
- Super Mario Galaxy
- Super Paper Mario
- New Super Mario Bros. Wii
- Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
- Super Mario Galaxy 2

Mediocre Age Mario is 2011- (not as bad as Sonic's Dark Age, but it's not that great)
- Super Mario 3D Land
- New Super Mario Bros. 2 (the only good game in this age)
- New Super Mario Bros. U
- Super Mario 3D World
- Paper Mario: Sticker Star
- Mario and Luigi: Dream Team
- Super Mario Maker
- Mario and Luigi: Paper Jam

The other Mario games are like a different story to me, which is why I never put them on this list. Not to mention that they have the same pattern and formula since their first installments.


I'll have to disagree with this ranking. The quality is more spread out than that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/16/16 at 7:33 pm


I'll have to disagree with this ranking. The quality is more spread out than that.


So, what do you think is the Golden, Silver, and Mediocre ages for Mario?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 7:42 pm


So, what do you think is the Golden, Silver, and Mediocre ages for Mario?


Like I said, I think Mario is still great. ;D

Paper Mario is its own series. The N64 one amazing. I didn't play the Gamecube one, but I heard it was even better. The Wii one was very average and disappointing, the 3DS one was a disaster.

For the 2D ones, Super Mario Bros. 3 was the absolute peak of the series, but I still really liked New Super Mario Bros. Wii (the DS one was very mediocre to me). I played a bit of the Wii U version as well and really enjoyed it. I haven't played the 3DS one, but I heard it's really bad, which is weird, because you call it "the only good game in this age" ;D

I LOVE 3D Land/World. I wish they were more challenging, but as a concept, I instantly fell in love.

Super Mario Maker is simply great. It's my second favourite Wii U game after Smash.

For 3D Mario, my opinion is Mario 64 > Sunshine > Galaxy. I haven't played Galaxy 2. There hasn't been a 3D Mario since Galaxy 2, so I don't understand how you can lump everything after it in a mediocre age, when there isn't really an "age" to speak of.

For Mario & Luigi, I loved Partners in Time and Superstar Saga. I haven't played the 3DS one. I heard it's not as good as the DS ones but still decent.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 7:57 pm


I actually edited to the Silver Age, since SM64 doesn't really seem like a Golden Age game to me. I mean, all of the Golden Age games were mainly 2D. Especially the side games. So, the NES and SNES games are basically the Golden Age.


I say this makes more sense as people consider the NES and SNES days to be Nintendo's golden age anyways. By the N64 days people say they were going downhill (I prefer N64 over the NES/SNES, but this is just my opinion anyways). So I can see Mario 64 bring group with the old late 1990s-2000s games.

This. All this. There's no other way of saying I agree with this, aside from the comment that I'm making.
First time I was able to make a comment like that without anyone wanting to set me on fire.  8)


Welp, we're not gonna have a good Paper Mario game since Super Paper Mario then. That sucks, since I actually enjoyed the first three games. They were so cool and unique, which seemed like sequels towards Super Mario RPG (for the SNES), except that it's on a paper universe.


First 3 games were decent. I liked all the RPGs up until the 3DS/WiiU games as I feel Nintendo sort of ruined the series. With the Paper Mario games Miyamoto literally stated that he'd prefer that the devs stop focusing on the story which is why Sticker Star was generic story wise when compared to the previous games. Mario & Luigi's latest games issue is probably just the fact that they're running out of ideas (making the same jokes since the first game for example ). Heck the latest game is a combine of the two RPG series (although I still find enjoyment in them due to their wackiness, characters, and gameplay).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 8:07 pm


Like I said, I think Mario is still great. ;D

Paper Mario is its own series. The N64 one amazing. I didn't play the Gamecube one, but I heard it was even better. The Wii one was very average and disappointing, the 3DS one was a disaster.

For the 2D ones, Super Mario Bros. 3 was the absolute peak of the series, but I still really liked New Super Mario Bros. Wii (the DS one was very mediocre to me). I played a bit of the Wii U version as well and really enjoyed it. I haven't played the 3DS one, but I heard it's really bad, which is weird, because you call it "the only good game in this age" ;D

I LOVE 3D Land/World. I wish they were more challenging, but as a concept, I instantly fell in love.

Super Mario Maker is simply great. It's my second favourite Wii U game after Smash.

For 3D Mario, my opinion is Mario 64 > Sunshine > Galaxy. I haven't played Galaxy 2. There hasn't been a 3D Mario since Galaxy 2, so I don't understand how you can lump everything after it in a mediocre age, when there isn't really an "age" to speak of.

For Mario & Luigi, I loved Partners in Time and Superstar Saga. I haven't played the 3DS one. I heard it's not as good as the DS ones but still decent.


What you say on the Paper Mario games is accurate. Paper Mario N64 and Thousand Year Door are the most loved of the series. People loved the original N64 game for establishing the series and people love TTYD for trying a bunch of new things that you wouldn't see in other Mario games (and still haven't to this very day). Super Paper Mario was slightly disappointing, but still retained some of the elements that I like in Paper plus you can play as Luigi which is always awesome to me. Sticker Star sucked and so will Color Splash.

I'm mixed on the New Super Mario Bros games. I liked the first one when it came out 10 years ago.........I can't believe it's been 10 years. I loved NSMB Wii as 4 Players was awesome. But NSMB 2 was basically the original DS game, but with coins falling out the sky (no seriously coins actually fall out the sky). And NSMB U was basically NSMB WII 2 which made it very generic.

For 3D Land/World like I've said my issue was how basic they were. They didn't have the complex/challenging level design of the previous 3D games which sort of made them feel boring. Nintendo does this to please casual fans who can't play challenging games as well. Plus if I remember correctly 3D Platformers never did as well as 2D Platformers due to their difficulty and (in Japan)  3D camera-sickness. So they try to avoid these issues by making the games like the 2D ones (they're 3D, but the logic you use when playing them is about the same as the 2D games) and by also making them easier. This all upsets me as a gamer who likes challenging platformers, but in the end I don't hate 3D Land or World. I just don't find them as interesting.

When ranking 3D Marios my rank is about the same as yours, but I place Galaxy 2 at the end since it's basically Galaxy 1 + Yoshi. And I don't count 3D Land/World as true 3D Marios like 64, Sunshine, Galaxy 1&2.

And as for the Mario and Luigi RPGs it's a similar case as the Paper Mario games. The first 3 (Superstar, Partners in Time, Bowser's Inside Story) were great, but around the 3DS era they stopped being as good. Dream Team was alright, but I Paper Jam was meh to me. It didn't really mix the idea of Mario & Luigi + Paper Mario in the way that I wanted it to. For starters where the hell is Paper Luigi and why isn't he playable! >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/16/16 at 8:12 pm


I say this makes more sense as people consider the NES and SNES days to be Nintendo's golden age anyways. By the N64 days people say they were going downhill (I prefer N64 over the NES/SNES, but this is just my opinion anyways). So I can see Mario 64 bring group with the old late 1990s-2000s games.


Yeah, I don't know why I thought SM64 was a golden age game. It's one of my favorite Mario games, but it doesn't seem as iconic as the Super Mario Bros. saga, nor Super Mario World.


First 3 games were decent. I liked all the RPGs up until the 3DS/WiiU games as I feel Nintendo sort of ruined the series. With the Paper Mario games Miyamoto literally stated that he'd prefer that the devs stop focusing on the story which is why Sticker Star was generic story wise when compared to the previous games. Mario & Luigi's latest games issue is probably just the fact that they're running out of ideas (making the same jokes since the first game for example ). Heck the latest game is a combine of the two RPG series (although I still find enjoyment in them due to their wackiness, characters, and gameplay).


Yeah. Which is why Nintendo is running out of ideas for their franchises. Especially Mario. I mean, there couldn't be a more perfect example than Mario.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 8:29 pm


Yeah, I don't know why I thought SM64 was a golden age game. It's one of my favorite Mario games, but it doesn't seem as iconic as the Super Mario Bros. saga, nor Super Mario World.

Yeah. Which is why Nintendo is running out of ideas for their franchises. Especially Mario. I mean, there couldn't be a more perfect example than Mario.


SM64 is iconic, but not as much as Super Mario Bros 1-3, World, or even the Original Donkey Kong in my opinion. I say this despite Mario 64 being one of my favorites. Heck I'd choose Mario 64 over the previous NES/SNES games, but this just mainly due to loving 3D platformers. Mario 64 created the 3D collectathon platformers, but sadly the genre died somewhere in 2003/4. We don't see them as much anyone outside of a hand full of indie games (all of which I'm looking forward to).

Besides Mario I'd give examples of Call of Duty, Madden, NFL, FIFA, Gran Turismo etc etc. All have been doing the same thing for the past 10+ years now. Only thing that sets Mario apart is that he's been around for 30+ years now. I'm curious on what 70s born think of Mario. What was it like to play the original Donkey Kong in 1981 and continue playing Mario in 2016.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 8:40 pm


What you say on the Paper Mario games is accurate. Paper Mario N64 and Thousand Year Door are the most loved of the series. People loved the original N64 game for establishing the series and people love TTYD for trying a bunch of new things that you wouldn't see in other Mario games (and still haven't to this very day). Super Paper Mario was slightly disappointing, but still retained some of the elements that I like in Paper plus you can play as Luigi which is always awesome to me. Sticker Star sucked and so will Color Splash.

I'm mixed on the New Super Mario Bros games. I liked the first one when it came out 10 years ago.........I can't believe it's been 10 years. I loved NSMB Wii as 4 Players was awesome. But NSMB 2 was basically the original DS game, but with coins falling out the sky (no seriously coins actually fall out the sky). And NSMB U was basically NSMB WII 2 which made it very generic.

For 3D Land/World like I've said my issue was how basic they were. They didn't have the complex/challenging level design of the previous 3D games which sort of made them feel boring. Nintendo does this to please casual fans who can't play challenging games as well. Plus if I remember correctly 3D Platformers never did as well as 2D Platformers due to their difficulty and (in Japan)  3D camera-sickness. So they try to avoid these issues by making the games like the 2D ones (they're 3D, but the logic you use when playing them is about the same as the 2D games) and by also making them easier. This all upsets me as a gamer who likes challenging platformers, but in the end I don't hate 3D Land or World. I just don't find them as interesting.

When ranking 3D Marios my rank is about the same as yours, but I place Galaxy 2 at the end since it's basically Galaxy 1 + Yoshi. And I don't count 3D Land/World as true 3D Marios like 64, Sunshine, Galaxy 1&2.

And as for the Mario and Luigi RPGs it's a similar case as the Paper Mario games. The first 3 (Superstar, Partners in Time, Bowser's Inside Story) were great, but around the 3DS era they stopped being as good. Dream Team was alright, but I Paper Jam was meh to me. It didn't really mix the idea of Mario & Luigi + Paper Mario in the way that I wanted it to. For starters where the hell is Paper Luigi and why isn't he playable! >:(


Looks like we agree on most things, which also means you secretly agree with me on DS being the best.  ;) Haha, jk.

I forgot about Bowser's Inside Story! That game was great too :D Shame that the 3DS ones are a step down.

And yeah, I don't consider 3D Land/World a part of the 3D Mario series either, it's its own series.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/16/16 at 8:42 pm


Besides Mario I'd give examples of Call of Duty, Madden, NFL, FIFA, Gran Turismo etc etc. All have been doing the same thing for the past 10+ years now. Only thing that sets Mario apart is that he's been around for 30+ years now. I'm curious on what 70s born think of Mario. What was it like to play the original Donkey Kong in 1981 and continue playing Mario in 2016.


It would be surprising if people born in the 70s still play with Mario to this day. Most of them are either parents or middle-aged men/women who just seem to enjoy life.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/16/16 at 8:42 pm


I think 2002 was the first time I played Sonic, with Sonic Adventure 2.


Coincidentally, my first Sonic experience was exactly ten years before that, in 1992. My cousin got a brand new Sega Genesis for his 5th birthday that August, packed in with the original Sonic the Hedgehog. I played the game for the first time at his birthday party. For a kid that had really only played SMB 1, 2 & 3 up to that point (I didn't get my SNES until that Christmas) the colorful 16-bit graphics were amazing at the time.

Unfortunately, I didn't get a Genesis of my own until almost a year-and-a-half later. >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 8:52 pm


Coincidentally, my first Sonic experience was exactly ten years before that, in 1992. My cousin got a brand new Sega Genesis for his 5th birthday that August, packed in with the original Sonic the Hedgehog. I played the game for the first time at his birthday party. For a kid that had really only played SMB 1, 2 & 3 up to that point (I didn't get my SNES until that Christmas) the colorful 16-bit graphics were amazing at the time.

Unfortunately, I didn't get a Genesis of my own until almost a year-and-a-half later. >:(


You got two consoles in the span of one year, what's with the angry emoticon ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 8:56 pm


Looks like we agree on most things, which also means you secretly agree with me on DS being the best.  ;) Haha, jk.

HPUk21doVHg

I almost had to hurt you.  >:(

Now DS isn't my fav handheld, but it's in my 2nd or 3rd spot (depending on where I place the 3DS) as I do own quite a lot of enjoyable games for the thing.


And yeah, I don't consider 3D Land/World a part of the 3D Mario series either, it's its own series.


Yep, makes me wonder if Nintendo will continue the series after 3D World.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 8:59 pm


Coincidentally, my first Sonic experience was exactly ten years before that, in 1992. My cousin got a brand new Sega Genesis for his 5th birthday that August, packed in with the original Sonic the Hedgehog. I played the game for the first time at his birthday party. For a kid that had really only played SMB 1, 2 & 3 up to that point (I didn't get my SNES until that Christmas) the colorful 16-bit graphics were amazing at the time.

Unfortunately, I didn't get a Genesis of my own until almost a year-and-a-half later. >:(


You had BOTH the Genesis and SNES around the same time. Something that I don't think was common in the 4th console gen. Why you so angry? You were one of the lucky ones. For you it was like "I got both Mario World & Sonic the Hedgehog".

I know for myself during the 5th gen it was either you had an N64 or a PS1. But I had both so I was all "I have both Mario 64 & Crash Bandicoot" and then I'd put on this look
https://whyaskew.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/coolkid-small-with-text-200x300.jpg
And mock the lesser "cool" kids

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/16/16 at 9:04 pm


You got two consoles in the span of one year, what's with the angry emoticon ;D


That's because, to put it plainly, Sonic was hot and Mario was not in 1992-93.

As excited as I was about getting an SNES for Christmas in '92, I was also disappointed because most of friends had a Genesis, and were raving about how awesome Sonic 2 was. I had to listen to the crap all the way to Christmas '93, when I finally got my own Genesis.

Yeah, I know, First World Problems. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/16/16 at 9:06 pm


That's because, to put it plainly, Sonic was hot and Mario was not in 1992-93.

As excited as I was about getting an SNES for Christmas in '92, I was also disappointed because most of friends had a Genesis, and were raving about how awesome Sonic 2 was. I had to listen to the crap all the way to Christmas '93, when I finally got my own Genesis.

Yeah, I know, First World Problems. ;D


If I were you, I would've got the Genesis around Christmas of '92, since it was better than the Super Nintendo in my opinion. I would've love playing Sonic, Streets of Rage, Shining Force, Dynamite Headdy, Golden Axe, Decap Attack, and the third-party games from various companies. That would be so cool.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/16/16 at 9:16 pm

Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Bros 2 (Japan and U.S.) are my least favorite Mario games. Not saying they are bad, but definitely inferior to the other titles made in between. Sunshine's formula was not for me compared to the greatness of 64 and Galaxy 1 & 2, and the story of Super Mario Bros 2 as a whole, don't even get me started with that crap. Thanks to Super Mario Bros 2 Japan/Lost Levels going overboard and being too hard af, they had to turn it into a Doki Doki Panic remake for the U.S. replaced with Mario characters, the only Mario platform game that doesn't play like a Mario game, but at least it gave us Shy Guys, Bomb-Ombs, and Birdo for years to come.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/16/16 at 9:22 pm


I disagree with this. I pretty much think the opposite of that, since there weren't a lot of good games for the Mario franchise in a while.

To me, Golden Age Mario is from 1985-1995 (by the way, I'm only focusing on the main and RPG series)
- Super Mario Bros.
- Super Mario Bros. 2
- Super Mario Bros. 3
- Super Mario Land (it was released after SMB3 in Japan)
- Super Mario World
- Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins
- Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 (this may be the first Wario Land installment, but I'm including it anyway)
- Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island
- Super Mario RPG


Silver Age Mario is from 1996-2010 (although no main and RPG games were released between 1997-1999)
- Super Mario 64
- Paper Mario
- Super Mario Sunshine
- Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga
- Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door
- Mario and Luigi: Partners In Time
- New Super Mario Bros.
- Super Mario Galaxy
- Super Paper Mario
- New Super Mario Bros. Wii
- Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
- Super Mario Galaxy 2

Mediocre Age Mario is 2011- (not as bad as Sonic's Dark Age, but it's not that great)
- Super Mario 3D Land
- New Super Mario Bros. 2 (the only good game in this age)
- New Super Mario Bros. U
- Super Mario 3D World
- Paper Mario: Sticker Star
- Mario and Luigi: Dream Team
- Super Mario Maker
- Mario and Luigi: Paper Jam

The other Mario games are like a different story to me, which is why I never put them on this list. Not to mention that they have the same pattern and formula since their first installments.


Golden Age
- Super Mario Bros.
- Super Mario Bros. 2
- Super Mario Bros. 3
- Super Mario Land (it was released after SMB3 in Japan)
- Super Mario World

Silver Age
- Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins
- Super Mario RPG
- Super Mario 64
- Paper Mario

Bronze Age
- Super Mario Sunshine
- Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga
- Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door
- Mario and Luigi: Partners In Time

Renaissance Age
- New Super Mario Bros.
- Super Mario Galaxy
- Super Paper Mario
- New Super Mario Bros. Wii
- Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
- Super Mario Galaxy 2

Mediocre Age (not as bad as Sonic's Dark Age, but it's not that great)
- Super Mario 3D Land
- New Super Mario Bros. 2 (the only good game in this age)
- New Super Mario Bros. U
- Super Mario 3D World
- Paper Mario: Sticker Star
- Mario and Luigi: Dream Team
- Super Mario Maker
- Mario and Luigi: Paper Jam

FIXED BUDDY!   :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 9:24 pm


Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Bros 2 (Japan and U.S.) are my least favorite Mario games. Not saying they are bad, but definitely inferior to the other titles made in between. Sunshine's formula was not for me compared to the greatness of 64 and Galaxy 1 & 2, and the story of Super Mario Bros 2 as a whole, don't even get me started with that crap. Thanks to Super Mario Bros 2 Japan/Lost Levels going overboard and being too hard af, they had to turn it into a Doki Doki Panic remake for the U.S. replaced with Mario characters, the only Mario platform game that doesn't play like a Mario game, but at least it gave us Shy Guys, Bomb-Ombs, and Birdo for years to come.


I like Sunshine (although I'm aware of its issues), but I'm with you on Mario 2 (or as I like to call "Doki Doki Mario"). I'm fact I never liked either Mario 2s. Lost Levels just was poorly designed and frustrating (I'd try to jump over a pit, but I bump into an invisible block that sends me downward to my death for example) and Doki Doki Mario is just Doki Doki Panic: Starring Mario edition. Although the idea of playing as Peach and Toad were awesome to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 9:25 pm


Golden Age
- Super Mario Bros.
- Super Mario Bros. 2
- Super Mario Bros. 3
- Super Mario Land (it was released after SMB3 in Japan)
- Super Mario World

Silver Age
- Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins
- Super Mario RPG
- Super Mario 64
- Paper Mario

Bronze Age
- Super Mario Sunshine
- Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga
- Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door
- Mario and Luigi: Partners In Time

Renaissance Age
- New Super Mario Bros.
- Super Mario Galaxy
- Super Paper Mario
- New Super Mario Bros. Wii
- Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
- Super Mario Galaxy 2

Mediocre Age (not as bad as Sonic's Dark Age, but it's not that great)
- Super Mario 3D Land
- New Super Mario Bros. 2 (the only good game in this age)
- New Super Mario Bros. U
- Super Mario 3D World
- Paper Mario: Sticker Star
- Mario and Luigi: Dream Team
- Super Mario Maker
- Mario and Luigi: Paper Jam

FIXED BUDDY!   :)


I see we're at a point of differing opinions here. Funny as Mario never really did enter any official "ages" to begin with. Also you placed Mario Sunshine and the best Mario RPGS in the "bronze age" which is unforgivable. >:(

But hey opinions. People have them, I suppose.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/16/16 at 9:31 pm


You had BOTH the Genesis and SNES around the same time. Something that I don't think was common in the 4th console gen. Why you so angry? You were one of the lucky ones. For you it was like "I got both Mario World & Sonic the Hedgehog".

I know for myself during the 5th gen it was either you had an N64 or a PS1. But I had both so I was all "I have both Mario 64 & Crash Bandicoot" and then I'd put on this look
https://whyaskew.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/coolkid-small-with-text-200x300.jpg
And mock the lesser "cool" kids


I was lucky in the 5th Gen as well because I had an N64 and my brother had a PS1. That was a case where having a younger brother came in quite handy. ;)


If I were you, I would've got the Genesis around Christmas of '92, since it was better than the Super Nintendo in my opinion. I would've love playing Sonic, Streets of Rage, Shining Force, Dynamite Headdy, Golden Axe, Decap Attack, and the third-party games from various companies. That would be so cool.


It was my parents decision to get an SNES. Even though I may have been a bit disappointed not to get a Genesis, I didn't do too bad. Super Mario World, Super Ghouls & Ghosts and Tecmo Super Bowl was a pretty damn good Christmas haul. 8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 9:32 pm


That's because, to put it plainly, Sonic was hot and Mario was not in 1992-93.

As excited as I was about getting an SNES for Christmas in '92, I was also disappointed because most of friends had a Genesis, and were raving about how awesome Sonic 2 was. I had to listen to the crap all the way to Christmas '93, when I finally got my own Genesis.

Yeah, I know, First World Problems. ;D

I would've definitely been a Nintendo kid in the early 90s.

https://m.popkey.co/f6d204/LWYby_s-200x150.gif

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/16/16 at 9:33 pm


Golden Age
- Super Mario Bros.
- Super Mario Bros. 2
- Super Mario Bros. 3
- Super Mario Land (it was released after SMB3 in Japan)
- Super Mario World

Silver Age
- Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins
- Super Mario RPG
- Super Mario 64
- Paper Mario

Bronze Age
- Super Mario Sunshine
- Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga
- Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door
- Mario and Luigi: Partners In Time

Renaissance Age
- New Super Mario Bros.
- Super Mario Galaxy
- Super Paper Mario
- New Super Mario Bros. Wii
- Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
- Super Mario Galaxy 2

Mediocre Age (not as bad as Sonic's Dark Age, but it's not that great)
- Super Mario 3D Land
- New Super Mario Bros. 2 (the only good game in this age)
- New Super Mario Bros. U
- Super Mario 3D World
- Paper Mario: Sticker Star
- Mario and Luigi: Dream Team
- Super Mario Maker
- Mario and Luigi: Paper Jam

FIXED BUDDY!   :)


Eh. I'm okay with the ages. It seems like mine, but with more effort. Even though I don't think Paper Mario: TTYD, and the first two Mario and Luigi games should be considered as a bronze age.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/16/16 at 9:37 pm


I like Sunshine (although I'm aware of its issues), but I'm with you on Mario 2 (or as I like to call "Doki Doki Mario"). I'm fact I never liked either Mario 2s. Lost Levels just was poorly designed and frustrating (I'd try to jump over a pit, but I bump into an invisible block that sends me downward to my death for example) and Doki Doki Mario is just Doki Doki Panic: Starring Mario edition. Although the idea of playing as Peach and Toad were awesome to me.


It was the only 2-D platform Mario game on my Wii Virtual Console I could NOT complete 100%. The mechanics were slippery and I could not time my jumps correctly. Poison mushrooms put in easy spots while regular mushrooms/fire flowers are put in hard or impossible spots, additions to enemies like red pihanna plants or hammer bros who charge you, warp zones that send you backwards, jumps that you must time perfectly, maze castles that are harder but now there were even more maze levels that loop around if you didn't find the right exit, pipe or path, the fact that you had to beat the game 8 times to unlock world's A-D. The requirements of the game was RIDICULOUS!!!! That game did everything it could to frustrate you in every single way. It was a 2-D platformer's ultimate test. That Mario game is a perfect example of a game that is left off from world 8 of the original game, and it only got more difficult from there. As hard as the original Super Mario Bros from 1985 was for people, that is like a Kindergarten/cake walk game compared to the Lost Levels, I'm not kidding. Rant over.

vlxuDPzWZRw UGTP5Kd99Xo

CPilblqulTE C6WlbYGJWTM

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/16/16 at 9:37 pm


It was my parents decision to get an SNES. Even though I may have been a bit disappointed not to get a Genesis, I didn't do too bad. Super Mario World, Super Ghouls & Ghosts and Tecmo Super Bowl was a pretty damn good Christmas haul. 8)


Yeah, it seemed like that. Although I would still go for the Genesis.  8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 9:44 pm


It was the only 2-D platform Mario game on my Wii Virtual Console I could NOT complete 100%. The mechanics were slippery and I could not time my jumps correctly. Poison mushrooms put in easy spots while regular mushrooms/fire flowers are put in hard or impossible spots, additions to enemies like red pihanna plants or hammer bros who charge you, warp zones that send you backwards, jumps that you must time perfectly, maze castles that are harder but now there were even more maze levels that loop around if you didn't find the right exit, pipe or path, the fact that you had to beat the game 8 times to unlock world's A-D. The requirements of the game was RIDICULOUS!!!! That game did everything it could to frustrate you in every single way. It was a 2-D platformer's ultimate test. That Mario game is a perfect example of a game that is left off from world 8 of the original game, and it only got more difficult from there. As hard as the original Super Mario Bros from 1985 was for people, that is like a Kindergarten/cake walk game compared to the Lost Levels, I'm not kidding. Rant over.


I agree 100%. I like challenging games, but only when they're fair challenges. Lost Levels was more like a game that trolled you. There is no way you would've know that the warp pip sense you backwards or the maze route through castles. It was all trial and error. Add this to  the fact that the game lacked saving. So once you've messed up a few times too many you were sent back to the beginning of the game. I only beaten the game when it was released for the GBC in 1999 (in Super Mario Bros Deluxe you can unlock Lost Levels), but in that game you could save which helped me. But the game was just downright insane in the stuff that it had you go through. Mario Bros '85 is easy to me. Mario Lost Levels is one of the top 10 hardest games I've ever played. But I do feel a sense of accomplishment when I beat it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/16/16 at 9:54 pm


Mario & Sonic at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games and the Smash Bros. series are the only 5 million+ sellers I can think of that came out after 2004.


Just for the record, these are the sales number for all the main games in the Sonic the Hedgehog series, per Wikipedia.


Sonic the Hedgehog: 15 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 2: 6 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 3: 1.02 million
Sonic & Knuckles: 1.24 million
Sonic Spinball: 1+ million
Sonic Adventure: 2.5 million
Sonic Adventure 2: ~1 million
Sonic Adventure 2 Battle: 2.56 million
Sonic Mega Collection: 2.05 million
Sonic Heros: 1.46 million
Sonic Adventure DX: 1.27 million
Sonic 06: Not Listed
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games: 7.09 million
Sonic Unleashed: 2.05 million
Sonic Colors: 2.18 million
Sonic Generations: 4+ million
Sonic Lost World: 710,000

A few thoughts:

*I can't believe that Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles both sold so few copies relatively speaking. I still think those number can't be right, because pretty much every kid I knew growing up seemed to have all of the 2D Sonic games.

*For some reason, I couldn't find the sales numbers for Sonic 06.

*LOL at Sonic Lost World. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/16/16 at 10:00 pm


Just for the record, these are the sales number for all the main games in the Sonic the Hedgehog series, per Wikipedia.


Sonic the Hedgehog: 15 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 2: 6 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 3: 1.02 million
Sonic & Knuckles: 1.24 million
Sonic Spinball: 1+ million
Sonic Adventure: 2.5 million
Sonic Adventure 2: ~1 million
Sonic Adventure 2 Battle: 2.56 million
Sonic Mega Collection: 2.05 million
Sonic Heros: 1.46 million
Sonic Adventure DX: 1.27 million
Sonic 06: Not Listed
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games: 7.09 million
Sonic Unleashed: 2.05 million
Sonic Colors: 2.18 million
Sonic Generations: 4+ million
Sonic Lost World: 710,000


I don't even want to think how many copies Sonic Boom sold. It's pretty much the worst installment to the Sonic franchise since Sonic '06, not because of the blue arms that Sonic had. It was pretty awful, and it seemed like nobody gave a crap about it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 10:04 pm


Just for the record, these are the sales number for all the main games in the Sonic the Hedgehog series, per Wikipedia.


Sonic the Hedgehog: 15 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 2: 6 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 3: 1.02 million
Sonic & Knuckles: 1.24 million
Sonic Spinball: 1+ million
Sonic Adventure: 2.5 million
Sonic Adventure 2: ~1 million
Sonic Adventure 2 Battle: 2.56 million
Sonic Mega Collection: 2.05 million
Sonic Heros: 1.46 million
Sonic Adventure DX: 1.27 million
Sonic 06: Not Listed
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games: 7.09 million
Sonic Unleashed: 2.05 million
Sonic Colors: 2.18 million
Sonic Generations: 4+ million
Sonic Lost World: 710,000

A few thoughts:

*I can't believe that Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles both sold so few copies relatively speaking. I still think those number can't be right, because pretty much every kid I knew growing up seemed to have all of the 2D Sonic games.

*For some reason, I couldn't find the sales numbers for Sonic 06.

*LOL at Sonic Lost World. ;D


If that 1 million for Sonic 3 is true (which I doubt), it could mean that more early 2000s kids played Sonic 3 (through Sonic Mega Collection) than 90s kids  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 10:05 pm


Just for the record, these are the sales number for all the main games in the Sonic the Hedgehog series, per Wikipedia.


Sonic the Hedgehog: 15 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 2: 6 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 3: 1.02 million
Sonic & Knuckles: 1.24 million
Sonic Spinball: 1+ million
Sonic Adventure: 2.5 million
Sonic Adventure 2: ~1 million
Sonic Adventure 2 Battle: 2.56 million
Sonic Mega Collection: 2.05 million
Sonic Heros: 1.46 million
Sonic Adventure DX: 1.27 million
Sonic 06: Not Listed
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games: 7.09 million
Sonic Unleashed: 2.05 million
Sonic Colors: 2.18 million
Sonic Generations: 4+ million
Sonic Lost World: 710,000

A few thoughts:

*I can't believe that Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles both sold so few copies relatively speaking. I still think those number can't be right, because pretty much every kid I knew growing up seemed to have all of the 2D Sonic games.

*For some reason, I couldn't find the sales numbers for Sonic 06.

*LOL at Sonic Lost World. ;D


Those numbers seem a bit off. Well to start off Sonic 06 sold about 2.22 million copies.

As for Sonic 3 & Knuckles I'm also confused as you are. Sonic 1 and 2 sold great, but 3&K while successful didn't do as well. I put the blame on the Sega Saturn and PlayStation 1 being announced that year. When new consoles arrive the old consoles tend to drop in sales. Super Nintendo was still getting big numbers since the N64 wasn't coming for another 2 years.

That sonic heroes sales is also inaccurate as across all console sit sold 6 million copies. I'm not sure if the sales you mention are referencing all console sales

Sonic Unleashed as been reported by Sega to sale over 4-5 million

Sonic Colors sold 3 million.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 10:06 pm


If that 1 million for Sonic 3 is true (which I doubt), it could mean that more early 2000s kids played Sonic 3 (through Sonic Mega Collection) than 90s kids  ;D


It's probably true. But the thought of that is pretty funny.  Across all Platformers Sonic Mega Collection sold around 6 million copies. Meaning that more people played Sonic 3 in the early 2000s than they did in the mid 1990s. And about the same amount of people who played Sonic 2 in 1992 also played Sonic 2 in 2002/3. HA! :D

Early 2000s was a crazy time for Sonic.
- Archie Sonic Comics
- Sonic advance 1,2,3
- Sonic Adventure 1 and 2
- Sonic X
- Sonic Mega Collection
- Sonic Heroes
- Sonic Battle
- Sonic merchandise
- Sonic Shuffle

Within 2000-2003/4 Sonic was everywhere.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/16/16 at 10:08 pm


If that 1 million for Sonic 3 is true (which I doubt), it could mean that more early 2000s kids played Sonic 3 (through Sonic Mega Collection) than 90s kids  ;D


Or maybe more 2000s kids played Sonic 3 more than 90s kids. Even though I never really played Sonic 3 until 2010, but it was kinda recent for 2000s culture at the time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 10:16 pm


It's probably true. But the thought of that is pretty funny.  Across all Platformers Sonic Mega Collection sold around 6 million copies. Meaning that more people played Sonic 3 in the early 2000s than they did in the mid 1990s. And about the same amount of people who played Sonic 2 in 1992 also played Sonic 2 in 2002/3. HA! :D

Early 2000s was a crazy time for Sonic.
- Archie Sonic Comics
- Sonic advance 1,2,3
- Sonic Adventure 1 and 2
- Sonic X
- Sonic Mega Collection
- Sonic Heroes
- Sonic Battle
- Sonic merchandise
- Sonic Shuffle

Within 2000-2003/4 Sonic was everywhere.


The early 2000s were amazing for Sonic. They say #Only90sKidsRemember Sonic, but god damnit did I love him too ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 10:23 pm


The early 2000s were amazing for Sonic. They say #Only90sKidsRemember Sonic, but god damnit did I love him too ;D


The #Only90sKidsRemember Sonic is a full lie. 2000s Kids remember Sonic as he was still pretty popular. That list I made was just in the early 2000s alone. In the mid to late 2000s Sonic was still pretty popular. Say what you will about the quality of his games, but it doesn't change the fact that his games sold like hot games.

06 Sold over 2 million
Unleashed sold 4-5 million
Colors sold 3 million
Secret Rings sold near 3 million
Sonic Black Knight sold a million
Sonic Generations sold 4 million
Mario and Sonic Sold 8-9 million
etc

Sonic still had a presence. Heck I'd argue that on even terms more people played Sonic's 2000s games than his 1990s games. Sonic 1's sales aren't fully agreed on. Some sources say 15 million while others say 4 million. If it sold 4 million than it's on per with games like Sonic Unleashed. If it sold 15 then remember that this is only the case since it was a bundled titled. It came with the Genesis. Sonic 2 was in a similar case as it was bundled with the Genesis. But in terms of non bundled games (mainly the 2000s games since there was no Sega console to bundle with) they sold pretty well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/16/16 at 10:37 pm


That sonic heroes sales is also inaccurate as across all console sit sold 6 million copies. I'm not sure if the sales you mention are referencing all console sales

Sonic Unleashed as been reported by Sega to sale over 4-5 million

Sonic Colors sold 3 million.


These numbers are correct. The ones I got from Wikipedia were individual console sales, not counting multi-plats. My bad. :-
The #Only90sKidsRemember Sonic is a full lie. 2000s Kids remember Sonic as he was still pretty popular. That list I made was just in the early 2000s alone. In the mid to late 2000s Sonic was still pretty popular. Say what you will about the quality of his games, but it doesn't change the fact that his games sold like hot games.

06 Sold over 2 million
Unleashed sold 4-5 million
Colors sold 3 million
Secret Rings sold near 3 million
Sonic Black Knight sold a million
Sonic Generations sold 4 million
Mario and Sonic Sold 8-9 million
etc

Sonic still had a presence. Heck I'd argue that on even terms more people played Sonic's 2000s games than his 1990s games. Sonic 1's sales aren't fully agreed on. Some sources say 15 million while others say 4 million. If it sold 4 million than it's on per with games like Sonic Unleashed. If it sold 15 then remember that this is only the case since it was a bundled titled. It came with the Genesis. Sonic 2 was in a similar case as it was bundled with the Genesis. But in terms of non bundled games (mainly the 2000s games since there was no Sega console to bundle with) they sold pretty well.


That's a good point. Sonic 1 and Sonic 2 both had their sales numbers inflated due to being bundled in with the Genesis, during a time in 1991, '92, and '93 when the Genesis was the hottest gaming console on the planet. That could be one reason why Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles didn't sale nearly as well. They were never (to my knowledge) bundled with the Genesis, and the Super Nintendo had reasserted itself as the top console by 1994 thanks to Donkey Kong Country.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 10:39 pm


The #Only90sKidsRemember Sonic is a full lie. 2000s Kids remember Sonic as he was still pretty popular. That list I made was just in the early 2000s alone. In the mid to late 2000s Sonic was still pretty popular. Say what you will about the quality of his games, but it doesn't change the fact that his games sold like hot games.

06 Sold over 2 million
Unleashed sold 4-5 million
Colors sold 3 million
Secret Rings sold near 3 million
Sonic Black Knight sold a million
Sonic Generations sold 4 million
Mario and Sonic Sold 8-9 million
etc

Sonic still had a presence. Heck I'd argue that on even terms more people played Sonic's 2000s games than his 1990s games. Sonic 1's sales aren't fully agreed on. Some sources say 15 million while others say 4 million. If it sold 4 million than it's on per with games like Sonic Unleashed. If it sold 15 then remember that this is only the case since it was a bundled titled. It came with the Genesis. Sonic 2 was in a similar case as it was bundled with the Genesis. But in terms of non bundled games (mainly the 2000s games since there was no Sega console to bundle with) they sold pretty well.


I remember Sonic Generations being really popular and having really good reception.

I bought Secret Rings, it was OK, but not as good as Heroes, and way below Adventure 1/2.  :( But for the Wii in 2007 which barely had any games, it was pretty decent.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/16/16 at 10:45 pm

Once again, for fun, these are the sales numbers for the main games in the Mario console series. You'll notice, these are considerably larger than the ones for Sonic.

Super Mario Bros.: 55 million
Super Mario Bros. 2: 10 million
Super Mario Bros. 3: 18 million
Super Mario World: 20 million
Super Mario World 2: 4 million
Super Mario 64: 11.9 million
Super Mario Sunshine: 6.31 million
Super Mario Galaxy: 12.5 million
New Super Mario Bros. Wii: 29.32 million
Super Mario Galaxy 2: 7.67 million
New Super Mario Bros. U: 5.34 million
Super Mario 3D World: 5.01 million

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 10:50 pm


Once again, for fun, these are the sales numbers for the main games in the Mario console series. You'll notice, these are considerably larger than the ones for Sonic.

Super Mario Bros.: 55 million
Super Mario Bros. 2: 10 million
Super Mario Bros. 3: 18 million
Super Mario World: 20 million
Super Mario World 2: 4 million
Super Mario 64: 11.9 million
Super Mario Sunshine: 6.31 million
Super Mario Galaxy: 12.5 million
New Super Mario Bros. Wii: 29.32 million
Super Mario Galaxy 2: 7.67 million
New Super Mario Bros. U: 5.34 million
Super Mario 3D World: 5.01 million


I'm surprised 3D World sales are edging closer towards Sunshine :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 10:58 pm


These numbers are correct. The ones I got from Wikipedia were individual console sales, not counting multi-plats. My bad. :-
Once again, for fun, these are the sales numbers for the main games in the Mario console series. You'll notice, these are considerably larger than the ones for Sonic.

Super Mario Bros.: 55 million
Super Mario Bros. 2: 10 million
Super Mario Bros. 3: 18 million
Super Mario World: 20 million
Super Mario World 2: 4 million
Super Mario 64: 11.9 million
Super Mario Sunshine: 6.31 million
Super Mario Galaxy: 12.5 million
New Super Mario Bros. Wii: 29.32 million
Super Mario Galaxy 2: 7.67 million
New Super Mario Bros. U: 5.34 million
Super Mario 3D World: 5.01 million


WWWWHHHHHOOOOAAA!!! Guess bundling really does help sell a game.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/16/16 at 10:59 pm


I'm surprised 3D World sales are edging closer towards Sunshine :o


Particularly since the Gamecube sold something like 10 million more units than the Wii U has. :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 11:06 pm


Particularly since the Gamecube sold something like 10 million more units than the Wii U has. :o


A sign of desperation from Wii U owners.

https://33.media.tumblr.com/6b502e0d59f20acd3eb3677d01c0112e/tumblr_inline_o4md8zC6cC1rx0fpl_540.gif

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/16/16 at 11:07 pm


Particularly since the Gamecube sold something like 10 million more units than the Wii U has. :o


I assume the thing is that 3D Collectathon Marios never did as well as 2D Marios. Sunshine is more pure 3D while 3D World is more of a 2D/3D Blend which appeals to more people. Also I think 3D World was a bundled title. In fact nearly all console Mario games are bundled titles.

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/JU0AAOSwYHxWIWDk/s-l300.jpg
A sign of desperation from Wii U owners.

https://33.media.tumblr.com/6b502e0d59f20acd3eb3677d01c0112e/tumblr_inline_o4md8zC6cC1rx0fpl_540.gif


They want their games.  8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/16/16 at 11:10 pm


I assume the thing is that 3D Collectathon Marios never did as well as 2D Marios. Sunshine is more pure 3D while 3D World is more of a 2D/3D Blend which appeals to more people. Also I think 3D World was a bundled title. In fact nearly all console Mario games are bundled titles.

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/JU0AAOSwYHxWIWDk/s-l300.jpg
They want their games.  8)


That makes a lot more sense than every Wii U game selling 5 million because of people desperate to buy any game ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/17/16 at 12:07 am


I think 2002 was the first time I played Sonic, with Sonic Adventure 2.
Damn you guys as are all late  ;D ;D ;)


I assume the thing is that 3D Collectathon Marios never did as well as 2D Marios. Sunshine is more pure 3D while 3D World is more of a 2D/3D Blend which appeals to more people. Also I think 3D World was a bundled title. In fact nearly all console Mario games are bundled titles.

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/JU0AAOSwYHxWIWDk/s-l300.jpg
They want their games.  8)
I swear Nintendo got that idea from Sega when they first used that formula on Sonic Unleashed.


Just for the record, these are the sales number for all the main games in the Sonic the Hedgehog series, per Wikipedia.


Sonic the Hedgehog: 15 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 2: 6 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 3: 1.02 million
Sonic & Knuckles: 1.24 million
Sonic Spinball: 1+ million
Sonic Adventure: 2.5 million
Sonic Adventure 2: ~1 million
Sonic Adventure 2 Battle: 2.56 million
Sonic Mega Collection: 2.05 million
Sonic Heros: 1.46 million
Sonic Adventure DX: 1.27 million
Sonic 06: Not Listed
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games: 7.09 million
Sonic Unleashed: 2.05 million
Sonic Colors: 2.18 million
Sonic Generations: 4+ million
Sonic Lost World: 710,000

A few thoughts:

*I can't believe that Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles both sold so few copies relatively speaking. I still think those number can't be right, because pretty much every kid I knew growing up seemed to have all of the 2D Sonic games.

*For some reason, I couldn't find the sales numbers for Sonic 06.

*LOL at Sonic Lost World. ;D
;D ;D ;D

Lost World sold under a million?  ;D

And how could you forget Sonic CD? That's actually a main game and I know for sure that Spinball isn't a main gamer AFAIK, but otherwise, it was good.

Oh, and I agree with those who said that Lost Levels was difficult. I first played it on SMAS on the SNES and I was so frustrated after getting so many game overs that I gave up. Who the Fs idea was it to take the game super hardcore?


Once again, for fun, these are the sales numbers for the main games in the Mario console series. You'll notice, these are considerably larger than the ones for Sonic.

Super Mario Bros.: 55 million
Super Mario Bros. 2: 10 million
Super Mario Bros. 3: 18 million
Super Mario World: 20 million
Super Mario World 2: 4 million
Super Mario 64: 11.9 million
Super Mario Sunshine: 6.31 million
Super Mario Galaxy: 12.5 million
New Super Mario Bros. Wii: 29.32 million
Super Mario Galaxy 2: 7.67 million
New Super Mario Bros. U: 5.34 million
Super Mario 3D World: 5.01 million
i'm with Toon. Bundles sure do help games sell very well. There's no wonder that NSMB Wii sold way more than all the others except the very original.

As for why SMB is 55 million, that wasn't just the bundles, but also the fact that it helped revived gaming after the video game crash that occurred a few years prior.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 08/17/16 at 2:21 am


Lol I was joking (sorta)  ;D

1998 and especially 1999 weren't all that different from the early 2000s anyway.


I totally agree with this statement. ;)

By the way, dude, you hear the new Green Day song? It's totally f*ckin awesome! It's been a long time since I've genuinely liked a Green Day song... This is the kind of political direction I like where they actually attack issues instead of masquerading as political geniuses while trying to pass off some half-assed BS Tommy/Zen Arcade rip-off. I hope the rest of the album is in the same vein!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 08/17/16 at 2:31 am


Just for the record, these are the sales number for all the main games in the Sonic the Hedgehog series, per Wikipedia.


Sonic the Hedgehog: 15 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 2: 6 million
Sonic the Hedgehog 3: 1.02 million
Sonic & Knuckles: 1.24 million
Sonic Spinball: 1+ million
Sonic Adventure: 2.5 million
Sonic Adventure 2: ~1 million
Sonic Adventure 2 Battle: 2.56 million
Sonic Mega Collection: 2.05 million
Sonic Heros: 1.46 million
Sonic Adventure DX: 1.27 million
Sonic 06: Not Listed
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games: 7.09 million
Sonic Unleashed: 2.05 million
Sonic Colors: 2.18 million
Sonic Generations: 4+ million
Sonic Lost World: 710,000

A few thoughts:

*I can't believe that Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles both sold so few copies relatively speaking. I still think those number can't be right, because pretty much every kid I knew growing up seemed to have all of the 2D Sonic games.

*For some reason, I couldn't find the sales numbers for Sonic 06.

*LOL at Sonic Lost World. ;D


Sonic Heroes was my first Sonic game I ever played. I played it in 2005, I was 6 years old, played it for the first time since 2008 a month ago, and it's definitely not as enjoyable as it was when I was a kid. I'm assuming that's because I've played a lot of good games since then.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/17/16 at 3:27 am


Once again, for fun, these are the sales numbers for the main games in the Mario console series. You'll notice, these are considerably larger than the ones for Sonic.

Super Mario Bros.: 55 million
Super Mario Bros. 2: 10 million
Super Mario Bros. 3: 18 million
Super Mario World: 20 million
Super Mario World 2: 4 million
Super Mario 64: 11.9 million
Super Mario Sunshine: 6.31 million
Super Mario Galaxy: 12.5 million
New Super Mario Bros. Wii: 29.32 million
Super Mario Galaxy 2: 7.67 million
New Super Mario Bros. U: 5.34 million
Super Mario 3D World: 5.01 million


Welp, no surprise here. I keep trying to tell people who are either blinded by rose colored glasses or were only really casual Mario fans! But they don't listen to me!  ;D

Edit: Super Mario World 2 is not really a Mario game, it's a Yoshi game.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 08/17/16 at 8:17 am


Yeah, I don't know why I thought SM64 was a golden age game. It's one of my favorite Mario games, but it doesn't seem as iconic as the Super Mario Bros. saga, nor Super Mario World.

Yeah. Which is why Nintendo is running out of ideas for their franchises. Especially Mario. I mean, there couldn't be a more perfect example than Mario.


Mario was a part of my generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/17/16 at 8:40 am


Mario was a part of my generation.


Mario was a part of all our generations. But I'm curious on something, Howard. Did you ever play the original donkey kong arcade game that released in the early 80s? Curious on what it was like to play Mario from the very beginning. I didn't get into Mario until Mario 64 in 1996/7. I did have a Super Nintendo, but I only had the Donkey Kong Country Games, Earthworm Jim, Super Mario Kart.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/17/16 at 8:56 am


Once again, for fun, these are the sales numbers for the main games in the Mario console series. You'll notice, these are considerably larger than the ones for Sonic.

Super Mario Bros.: 55 million
Super Mario Bros. 2: 10 million
Super Mario Bros. 3: 18 million
Super Mario World: 20 million
Super Mario World 2: 4 million
Super Mario 64: 11.9 million
Super Mario Sunshine: 6.31 million
Super Mario Galaxy: 12.5 million
New Super Mario Bros. Wii: 29.32 million
Super Mario Galaxy 2: 7.67 million
New Super Mario Bros. U: 5.34 million
Super Mario 3D World: 5.01 million


Yoshi's Island is the least selling game from the main series? That can't be true. It's one of the most famous Mario games out there. Unless the GBA port had more sales than the original SNES game.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/17/16 at 9:04 am


Yoshi's Island is the least selling game from the main series? That can't be true. It's one of the most famous Mario games out there. Unless the GBA port had more sales than the original SNES game.


If I remember correctly Yoshi's Island was more of a reaction towards Donkey Kong Country. Shigeru Miyamoto stated that he didn't like the realistic graphics of Donkey Kong Country and decided to make Yoshi's Island more like a game that was made by crayons. Well in short no one wanted a game that didn't look cutting edge and no one wanted a game where you don't actually play as Mario despite him being with you the entire time.

As for Yoshi's Island GBA about 3 million copies were sold.  Not as much as the SNES version, but still  a high amount. Heck half the top selling GBA games are just ports of SNES games.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/17/16 at 9:22 am


Yoshi's Island is the least selling game from the main series? That can't be true. It's one of the most famous Mario games out there. Unless the GBA port had more sales than the original SNES game.


Remember, the Yoshi's Island series is not an official Mario game where Mario is the main character. Same goes for games like Donkey Kong Country, Wario Ware, Super Princess Peach, or Luigi's Mansion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/17/16 at 9:24 am


If I remember correctly Yoshi's Island was more of a reaction towards Donkey Kong Country. Shigeru Miyamoto stated that he didn't like the realistic graphics of Donkey Kong Country and decided to make Yoshi's Island more like a game that was made by crayons. Well in short no one wanted a game that didn't look cutting edge and no one wanted a game where you don't actually play as Mario despite him being with you the entire time.

As for Yoshi's Island GBA about 3 million copies were sold.  Not as much as the SNES version, but still  a high amount. Heck half the top selling GBA games are just ports of SNES games.


I guess it had a cult following, from what I'm seeing.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/17/16 at 9:25 am


Remember, the Yoshi's Island series is a spin-off Mario series, it's not an official Mario game. Same goes for games like Donkey Kong Country, Wario Ware, Super Princess Peach, or Luigi's Mansion.


Some can find that confusing since it does have the name "Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island". I didn't see it as a spin off until a few years ago. Before that I was mislead by the name of Super Mario World 2

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/17/16 at 9:27 am


I guess it had a cult following, from what I'm seeing.


Pretty much. Well it was a success and memorable game and some consider it the best SNES platformer.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/17/16 at 9:28 am


I remember Sonic Generations being really popular and having really good reception.

I bought Secret Rings, it was OK, but not as good as Heroes, and way below Adventure 1/2.  :( But for the Wii in 2007 which barely had any games, it was pretty decent.


Generations was a pretty cool game. And I love Heroes and Adventure 1/2. Secret Rings wasn't awful to me, but didn't like the always-moving-forward-motion-controls gameplay. Had great music, though.



Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 08/17/16 at 9:34 am


Mario was a part of all our generations. But I'm curious on something, Howard. Did you ever play the original donkey kong arcade game that released in the early 80s? Curious on what it was like to play Mario from the very beginning. I didn't get into Mario until Mario 64 in 1996/7. I did have a Super Nintendo, but I only had the Donkey Kong Country Games, Earthworm Jim, Super Mario Kart.


I played Donkey Kong in the arcades during my time, it was hard but I had fun.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/17/16 at 9:40 am


The #Only90sKidsRemember Sonic is a full lie. 2000s Kids remember Sonic as he was still pretty popular. That list I made was just in the early 2000s alone. In the mid to late 2000s Sonic was still pretty popular. Say what you will about the quality of his games, but it doesn't change the fact that his games sold like hot games.

06 Sold over 2 million
Unleashed sold 4-5 million
Colors sold 3 million
Secret Rings sold near 3 million
Sonic Black Knight sold a million
Sonic Generations sold 4 million
Mario and Sonic Sold 8-9 million
etc

Sonic still had a presence. Heck I'd argue that on even terms more people played Sonic's 2000s games than his 1990s games. Sonic 1's sales aren't fully agreed on. Some sources say 15 million while others say 4 million. If it sold 4 million than it's on per with games like Sonic Unleashed. If it sold 15 then remember that this is only the case since it was a bundled titled. It came with the Genesis. Sonic 2 was in a similar case as it was bundled with the Genesis. But in terms of non bundled games (mainly the 2000s games since there was no Sega console to bundle with) they sold pretty well.


As a mid-late 2000s kid, I was only into the early-mid 90s games, along with the Sonic Advance trilogy. I wasn't really into the franchise as much as Mario, where I was completely fascinated into his history when I was 8 and 9. Sonic may introduced to playing console games, but Mario really fascinated me more than that hedgehog.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/17/16 at 9:43 am


Pretty much. Well it was a success and memorable game and some consider it the best SNES platformer.


Yeah. I thought it was like that, since people treated it as such. Especially when it lead to a GBA port, some easter eggs in Paper Mario, and a bunch of sequels on the DS and 3DS.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/17/16 at 9:55 am


As a mid-late 2000s kid, I was only into the early-mid 90s games, along with the Sonic Advance trilogy. I wasn't really into the franchise as much as Mario, where I was completely fascinated into his history when I was 8 and 9. Sonic may introduced to playing console games, but Mario really fascinated me more than that hedgehog.


I played a bit of Sonic in the 2000s. But Lance had every Sonic game that every existed (well if it existed on consoles or handhelds anyways). Had all the comics and watched the TV Shows. To me he was like a walking Sonic encylopedia. The joker took my copy of Sonic Heroes.  >:( I like Mario back in the late 2000s as I enjoy Mario Galaxy and and New super Mario Bros Wii. But around the late 2000s all I was every obsessed with was Kingdom Hearts and other RPGs. Late 2000s was a bit of a weird time for me when it comes to gaming.

Now this is off-topic, but Sonic Advance 3 has the best Green Hill Zone remix of all time
ph8FA4Fhyok

Although that GBA audio quality is certainly dated to the extreme.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/17/16 at 10:03 am


I played a bit of Sonic in the 2000s. But Lance had every Sonic game that every existed (well if it existed on consoles or handhelds anyways). Had all the comics and watched the TV Shows. To me he was like a walking Sonic encylopedia. The joker took my copy of Sonic Heroes.  >:( I like Mario back in the late 2000s as I enjoy Mario Galaxy and and New super Mario Bros Wii. But around the late 2000s all I was every obsessed with was Kingdom Hearts and other RPGs. Late 2000s was a bit of a weird time for me when it comes to gaming.


Eh. The 2000s were kinda like a weird time for me when it comes to gaming, since I never really got into console games until I was 7. The only franchises that I were into was Pokemon, Mario, and Sonic. Never really got into a lot of Nintendo's franchises until later on, although I did watch some of the games from The Angry Video Game Nerd.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/17/16 at 10:11 am


Eh. The 2000s were kinda like a weird time for me when it comes to gaming, since I never really got into console games until I was 7. The only franchises that I were into was Pokemon, Mario, and Sonic. Never really got into a lot of Nintendo's franchises until later on, although I did watch some of the games from The Angry Video Game Nerd.


Late 2000s was that time where I was mainly watching videos about games rather then playing them myself. Youtube was a wonderful thing.  8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/17/16 at 10:18 am


Late 2000s was that time where I was mainly watching videos about games rather then playing them myself. Youtube was a wonderful thing.  8)


Same with me. I basically watched YouTube videos about gaming during the late 2000s more than playing them. I never really got the gist of going through the entire game as a kid.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/17/16 at 2:09 pm


I totally agree with this statement. ;)

By the way, dude, you hear the new Green Day song? It's totally f*ckin awesome! It's been a long time since I've genuinely liked a Green Day song... This is the kind of political direction I like where they actually attack issues instead of masquerading as political geniuses while trying to pass off some half-assed BS Tommy/Zen Arcade rip-off. I hope the rest of the album is in the same vein!


Oh my god, yes! ;D It's an awesome song. It won't be too difficult to top Uno/Dos/Tre but...


Whether this album can top 21st Century Breakdown is yet to be seen  :P :P :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 08/17/16 at 2:54 pm


Same with me. I basically watched YouTube videos about gaming during the late 2000s more than playing them. I never really got the gist of going through the entire game as a kid.


I watched YouTube just for music videos.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 08/17/16 at 5:41 pm


Oh my god, yes! ;D It's an awesome song. It won't be too difficult to top Uno/Dos/Tre but...


Whether this album can top 21st Century Breakdown is yet to be seen  :P :P :P


Dude, that one song is already miles better than anything off of American Idiot or 21st Century. I hope the rest follows suit and they keep on this track because if so, I might actually go out and buy the CD. I mean it.

So far, 2016 has much, much more new music for me to enjoy than 2004-2015 ever had. Green Day, blink-182, Belvedere, NoFX, Descendents are all coming out with quality albums. I hope the next Sum single is good because Dave being back in the band still has me stoked despite that sh!tty first single.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/17/16 at 7:32 pm


Dude, that one song is already miles better than anything off of American Idiot or 21st Century. I hope the rest follows suit and they keep on this track because if so, I might actually go out and buy the CD. I mean it.

So far, 2016 has much, much more new music for me to enjoy than 2004-2015 ever had. Green Day, blink-182, Belvedere, NoFX, Descendents are all coming out with quality albums. I hope the next Sum single is good because Dave being back in the band still has me stoked despite that sh!tty first single.


But... But... Jesus of Suburbia and Last of the American Girls ;_;

Hmm never heard of Belvédère before and isn't Descendents a book series. I'll have to check them out ;D The new NoFX single was good.

Also is it just me or does the part before he starts singing in Bang Bang sound a lot like the beginning in Rise and Fall by The Offspring  :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 08/17/16 at 8:40 pm


But... But... Jesus of Suburbia and Last of the American Girls ;_;

Hmm never heard of Belvédère before and isn't Descendents a book series. I'll have to check them out ;D The new NoFX single was good.

Also is it just me or does the part before he starts singing in Bang Bang sound a lot like the beginning in Rise and Fall by The Offspring  :-X


Dude, those songs just don't compare. This new song sounds like a Bad Religion song! I hope the rest of the album is even speedier and angrier! 2016 is screwed up when I'm actually supporting Green Day's political direction but so far, this is really good. If American Idiot was more like this: bare-bones music and a straight to the point honest message then I'd like it, too.

Belevedere is a band from Canada. ;) Look up their first three records, I think you'll like 'em! And with the Descendents, I'd start with Everything Sucks and Cool to Be You.

Do you want to ruin this for me? >:( I actually like a new Green Day song. :o The only part that sucks is the bridge. The riff is really good but it's too out of place in the context of the rest of the song and his singing is stupid and pretentious like 21st CBD. If Greg Graffin sang something cool over it then I'd have a different opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/17/16 at 10:09 pm


Yoshi's Island is the least selling game from the main series? That can't be true. It's one of the most famous Mario games out there. Unless the GBA port had more sales than the original SNES game.


One of the things that really hurt Yoshi's Island was when it came out. The game was released in late 1995, which was towards the end of the SNES's life cycle. The PlayStation and Sega Saturn both launched around that same time too, which further took the wind out of the game's sails.

It didn't help matters that the spring and summer of 1996 were dominated by the hype of the Nintendo 64 and Super Mario 64. Even though Yoshi's Island was critically acclaimed from a review standpoint, the game was constantly being overshadowed during it's time in stores.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Willmisses2004 on 08/18/16 at 6:45 pm

Honestly, this is my final opinion.

G.I. 1904-1924
Silent. 1925-1945
Baby Boomers. 1946-1964
Gen X. 1965-1981
Millennials. 1982-2004
Gen Z. 2005-present

Bonus: Why does Gen Y continue for 22 years? Well, because 1982 (the obvious starting point for millennial birth years) graduated COLLEGE in '04. Also, I think there is a big difference between a 2004 baby and a 2005 baby.

Bonus 2: Millennials: 1982-2000
              Baby Millennials: 2001-2004

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/19/16 at 4:39 pm


As I mentioned before, does anyone else find it odd that people born in 1945 are often excluded from the boomers? Again, Pete Townshend seems VERY much like a Boomer to me, whatnot with his rebellious attitude and contributions to the 60s music scene. When he wrote the songs "My Generation" and "I've Known No War", he sure as hell wasn't describing the Silent Generation in those lyrics.

Take my Strawpoll and see.

http://www.strawpoll.me/11029296


I haven't listened to those songs, but those born 1944 and 1945 were part of the Vietnam draft, so they can be considered cultural Boomers to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 08/19/16 at 5:35 pm


As I mentioned before, does anyone else find it odd that people born in 1945 are often excluded from the boomers? Again, Pete Townshend seems VERY much like a Boomer to me, whatnot with his rebellious attitude and contributions to the 60s music scene. When he wrote the songs "My Generation" and "I've Known No War", he sure as hell wasn't describing the Silent Generation in those lyrics.

Take my Strawpoll and see.

http://www.strawpoll.me/11029296


Well according to Strauss and Howe the Boomers are actually born from 1943 to 1960.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/19/16 at 6:22 pm


True, but most media outlets tend to go with the 1946-1964 figure for whatever reason.


What was so important that would have the generation start at 1946 as opposed to any other year in the 1940s?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/19/16 at 6:24 pm


What was so important that would have the generation start at 1946 as opposed to any other year in the 1940s?


WW2 and The Great Depression ended, so people started having kids again. The boom in baby boom refers to the population boom.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/19/16 at 6:29 pm


WW2 and The Great Depression ended, so people started having kids again. The boom in baby boom refers to the population boom.


Ah, got ya. If WW3 were to ever start and we enter an economical change I wonder if we'd see the start of a new generation of people.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/19/16 at 6:52 pm


WW2 and The Great Depression ended, so people started having kids again. The boom in baby boom refers to the population boom.


I guess that's why 1946 was the start of the Baby Boomer generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/19/16 at 7:04 pm


In fact, come to think of it, this may be why some people choose to begin Millennials in ~1975-79!

The Vietnam War ended in 1972. The troops began returning in 1973, 1974, and most of the troops (who were primarily Boomers) had officially come back in 1975. The Boomers started having kids, and to some, this marked the end of Generation X.


Why would they want the generation known as Millennials? It pretty much has a lot of different definitions. It should be known as Generation Y, to be honest.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 08/19/16 at 7:15 pm


Why would they want the generation known as Millennials? It pretty much has a lot of different definitions. It should be known as Generation Y, to be honest.


I think Generation Y should start in 1982 and end in 1999, I don't have a good reason why it should start in 1982, but 1999 is the last year that starts with a 1 (before 2000) and because of that, placing all the 90's born people in one generation would make sense.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/19/16 at 7:32 pm


I think Generation Y should start in 1982 and end in 1999, I don't have a good reason why it should start in 1982, but 1999 is the last year that starts with a 1 (before 2000) and because of that, placing all the 90's born people in one generation would make sense.


It's kinda weird if they put the mid-late 90s babies into Generation Y, even though they do have some influences with Millennials. I'll rather put them up as Y/Z hybrids.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 08/19/16 at 8:02 pm


It's kinda weird if they put the mid-late 90s babies into Generation Y, even though they do have some influences with Millennials. I'll rather put them up as Y/Z hybrids.


I think it's weird if Generation Z starts before 2000, but I don't do hybrids at all. Since you were born in 1999, you're considered one of the youngest Gen Yers on this site.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/19/16 at 8:20 pm


I think it's weird if Generation Z starts before 2000, but I don't do hybrids at all. Since you were born in 1999, you're considered one of the youngest Gen Yers on this site.


Well, I don't really mind being part of Generation Y. Even though I do share with both Y and Z, although I'm not that related towards Generation Z kids.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/20/16 at 12:45 am


Honestly, this is my final opinion.

G.I. 1904-1924
Silent. 1925-1945
Baby Boomers. 1946-1964
Gen X. 1965-1981
Millennials. 1982-2004
Gen Z. 2005-present

Bonus: Why does Gen Y continue for 22 years? Well, because 1982 (the obvious starting point for millennial birth years) graduated COLLEGE in '04. Also, I think there is a big difference between a 2004 baby and a 2005 baby.

Bonus 2: Millennials: 1982-2000
              Baby Millennials: 2001-2004


I've seen that range, but no. I think Gen Z starts earlier than some people believe. I'm sure it's late 90s. Besides, there's definitely no difference between a 2004 and a 2005 person.


Well according to Strauss and Howe the Boomers are actually born from 1943 to 1960.
That's only one source; however though, isn't their generation much bigger since their parents had almost up to 10 children at a time?


In fact, come to think of it, this may be why some people choose to begin Millennials in ~1975-79!

The Vietnam War ended in 1972. The troops began returning in 1973, 1974, and most of the troops (who were primarily Boomers) had officially come back in 1975. The Boomers started having kids, and to some, this marked the end of Generation X.
There's actually a variety of reasons why i has been seen that way. One, the birthrate increased in the late 70s. Two, the Internet rose to popularity right when they were either in high school or college. Three, they were still in the target audience for Y2K pop culture (American Pie anyone?) and last, a majority of them actually have BB parents rather than Silent ones.


Why would they want the generation known as Millennials? It pretty much has a lot of different definitions. It should be known as Generation Y, to be honest.
Because the name refers to those who graduated around 2000, not those who were born around that period.


I think Generation Y should start in 1982 and end in 1999, I don't have a good reason why it should start in 1982, but 1999 is the last year that starts with a 1 (before 2000) and because of that, placing all the 90's born people in one generation would make sense.
Well there's many reasons why it ends earlier than 2000 and it truly begins before 1982. I mean for one, this generation is pretty huge (much bigger than Gen X) and the events that had a significance on them didn't truly affect those born around 2000.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/20/16 at 10:39 am


Because the name refers to those who graduated around 2000, not those who were born around that period.


But it could be more than just the Class of 2000. It could mean people who had their childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood in the late 90s - early 2010s, just like what Looney Toon said in a previous post.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/20/16 at 1:01 pm


But it could be more than just the Class of 2000. It could mean people who had their childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood in the late 90s - early 2010s, just like what Looney Toon said in a previous post.
Well I haven't seen that statement be mentioned in any article I've read. However, it could work though. By that, it would mean this generation is way much longer than ever.

Oh, and are you aware that this cohort also has more names than just Millennials and Gen Y?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/20/16 at 1:41 pm


Well I haven't seen that statement be mentioned in any article I've read. However, it could work though. By that, it would mean this generation is way much longer than ever.

Oh, and are you aware that this cohort also has more names than just Millennials and Gen Y?


I guess so. You could possibly name Generation Y from a lot of things, since it goes all over the place.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/20/16 at 2:16 pm


I guess so. You could possibly name Generation Y from a lot of things, since it goes all over the place.
Yeah, but that name is generic and was a just a placeholder until a better name came up. I don't know if that's what you meant though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/20/16 at 2:25 pm


Yeah, but that name is generic and was a just a placeholder until a better name came up. I don't know if that's what you meant though.


Generation Y seems generic as hell for most people during that time. The only nickname that's somehow mainstream is Millennials, but even then, it's not worth towards somebody who was born in the mid-late 90s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 08/20/16 at 2:44 pm


There's actually a variety of reasons why i has been seen that way. One, the birthrate increased in the late 70s. Two, the Internet rose to popularity right when they were either in high school or college. Three, they were still in the target audience for Y2K pop culture (American Pie anyone?) and last, a majority of them actually have BB parents rather than Silent ones.

I've heard you say that people born in the late 70s prefer calling themselves Millennials rather than Gen X.

Well, I don't know who you've talked to who says this, but the late 70s/early 80s babies I've talked over the years to would rather shoot themselves than calling themselves Millennials. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/20/16 at 2:59 pm


Generation Y seems generic as hell for most people during that time. The only nickname that's somehow mainstream is Millennials, but even then, it's not worth towards somebody who was born in the mid-late 90s.
I know. It is! Well, Millennials isn't the only one that's popular. There's Echo Boomers, Net, Peter Pan (;D ;D ;D), and Social Media.


I've heard you say that people born in the late 70s prefer calling themselves Millennials rather than Gen X.

Well, I don't know who you've talked to who says this, but the late 70s/early 80s babies I've talked over the years to would rather shoot themselves than calling themselves Millennials. ;D
Yeah, I've read comments from them saying they don't feel like true Xers and that they also were part of the American Pie culture, Pop-Punk and extreme.

Oh, and they don't have to see themselves as Millennials since that's not the only name this generation has other than Gen Y. I've read some old articles and they were also being applied as part of the Internet Generation (another term for Y).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/20/16 at 3:28 pm


Yeah, but that name is generic and was a just a placeholder until a better name came up. I don't know if that's what you meant though.


Talking about Gen Y/Millennials is rather ambiguous. It's not like Gen Z/Plurals, where they could be identified with the amount of technology they're growing up with.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/20/16 at 3:44 pm

My definition for Gen Y/millennials will always be 1981 to roughly mid/late 90's.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/20/16 at 4:10 pm


My definition for Gen Y/millennials will always be 1981 to roughly mid/late 90's.

Yeah, that's how I put it. These would be the only ones who were fully exposed to Gen Y culture in the late 1990s, 2000s, and early 2010s during their time growing up from kids to adults.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/20/16 at 4:39 pm


Talking about Gen Y/Millennials is rather ambiguous. It's not like Gen Z/Plurals, where they could be identified with the amount of technology they're growing up with.
Well it will happen soon since the oldest is hitting college and Plurals isn't the only name Gen Z has. There's also Founders, Homeland, Centennials, and New Silents.


Yeah, that's how I put it. These would be the only ones who were fully exposed to Gen Y culture in the late 1990s, 2000s, and early 2010s during their time growing up from kids to adults.
Do you think Gen Z culture began in 2013 or 2014?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/20/16 at 4:41 pm


Well it will happen soon since the oldest is hitting college and Plurals isn't the only name Gen Z has. There's also Founders, Homeland, Centennials, and New Silents.


Homelanders, I could get. But Founders, Centennials (which is sort of confusing towards those who are 100 years old and still alive), and New Silents don't seem to identify Gen Zers that much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/20/16 at 4:56 pm


Homelanders, I could get. But Founders, Centennials (which is sort of confusing towards those who are 100 years old and still alive), and New Silents don't seem to identify Gen Zers that much.
Centennials refers to them being born around the turn of the century. New Silents means that they share many traits with the Original Silents. Founders, this article will help you.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/12/all-hail-the-founders/418458/

But then I found out a little later it was a myth for them to be called Founders.

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-founder-generations-creation-myth

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/20/16 at 5:04 pm


Centennials refers to them being born around the turn of the century. New Silents means that they share many traits with the Original Silents. Founders, this article will help you.


Founders just sound like something that could've come from any revolution or something. It could rely towards older generations if they had no idea on who to name the other ones. Plurals or Homelanders are kinda like the only names that I could get from Generation Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/20/16 at 5:17 pm


Founders just sound like something that could've come from any revolution or something. It could rely towards older generations if they had no idea on who to name the other ones. Plurals or Homelanders are kinda like the only names that I could get from Generation Z.
Well I think Centennials will stick soon since the oldest members were born around the turn of the century. Another name not mentioned is they could be seen as the Digital Natives considering most don't recall  a time when everything was analog.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/20/16 at 5:33 pm


I've heard you say that people born in the late 70s prefer calling themselves Millennials rather than Gen X.

Well, I don't know who you've talked to who says this, but the late 70s/early 80s babies I've talked over the years to would rather shoot themselves than calling themselves Millennials. ;D


At another forum I go to, the late 70s people were flattered when a poll considered them millennials (ages 18-37), but a 1981er was annoyed lol.


Well I think Centennials will stick soon since the oldest members were born around the turn of the century. Another name not mentioned is they could be seen as the Digital Natives considering most don't recall  a time when everything was analog.


Centennial just means 100 (cent means 100 in Latin/French). Millennial means 1000 (mille means 1000). In this context, it refers to the same thing, the year 2000, so it feels pointless to make a distinction. Millennials are centennials lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/20/16 at 6:15 pm


At another forum I go to, the late 70s people were flattered when a poll considered them millennials (ages 18-37), but a 1981er was annoyed lol.

Centennial just means 100 (cent means 100 in Latin/French). Millennial means 1000 (mille means 1000). In this context, it refers to the same thing, the year 2000, so it feels pointless to make a distinction. Millennials are centennials lol.
That's because the person hates being a Millennial and rather wants to be an Xer despite not having any association with that generation.

Well tell that to the people who made the Millennials vs. Centennials article. I haven't seen any articles saying Millennials are the Centennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/21/16 at 12:16 am


That's because the person hates being a Millennial and rather wants to be an Xer despite not having any association with that generation.

Well tell that to the people who made the Millennials vs. Centennials article. I haven't seen any articles saying Millennials are the Centennials.


IMO the more you deny being a millennial the more millennial you are LOL. That's like the most millennial thing ever.

If you're proud of being a millennial then your credentials are in doubt :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/21/16 at 2:34 am


IMO the more you deny being a millennial the more millennial you are LOL. That's like the most millennial thing ever.

If you're proud of being a millennial then your credentials are in doubt :P
Yep, and I have already seen it happen especially with the older members denying they're not Millennials and that they're Gen Y saying they are two separate generations. ;D ::)

So you're saying that those who are proud to be a Millennial are actually not part of the cohort?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/21/16 at 8:27 am


IMO the more you deny being a millennial the more millennial you are LOL. That's like the most millennial thing ever.

If you're proud of being a millennial then your credentials are in doubt :P


So would it be the opposite whereas if the more you deny being part of Gen Z the more Gen Z like you are LOL?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/21/16 at 8:30 am


So would it be the opposite whereas if the more you deny being part of Gen Z the more Gen Z like you are LOL?


lol. I think I was just a Gen Z denier all this time.  ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/21/16 at 8:36 am


lol. I think I was just a Gen Z denier all this time.  ;D ;D ;D
Don't feel bad. I'm sure many people in your age range didn't want to be associated with Gen Z. ;D. I mean, who could blame them? Some of them saw being a Millennial or Gen X as one of the coolest things.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/21/16 at 8:48 am


Don't feel bad. I'm sure many people in your age range didn't want to be associated with Gen Z. ;D. I mean, who could blame them? Some of them saw being a Millennial or Gen X as one of the coolest things.


In all seriousness, I actually wish 1999/2000 babies were more associated with Gen Y. I grew up watching movies on a VCR, despite having a large collection of DVDs. Not to mention that I never knew what YouTube was until I was 7 1/2, which was when I was halfway over my childhood.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/21/16 at 9:03 am


In all seriousness, I actually wish 1999/2000 babies were more associated with Gen Y. I grew up watching movies on a VCR, despite having a large collection of DVDs. Not to mention that I never knew what YouTube was until I was 7 1/2, which was when I was halfway over my childhood.


When it comes to generations, I think a lot of people put too much emphasis on what age they were when some big technology came out or what age they were when a fad became obsolete. (I'm guilty of this too) Someone could be 5 years old using an iPad (3rd generation). Someone could be 38 years old using an iPad (3rd generation). What usually divides generations is a major historical event that changes the world. Like the end of WWII, or the internet boom in the mid/late 90's. It's debatable though, because not everybody agrees with these arbitrary cutoffs. It causes a lot of hostility between people. I'm not sure what historical event divides boomers/X and X/Y though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/21/16 at 9:28 am


When it comes to generations, I think a lot of people put too much emphasis on what age they were when some big technology came out or what age they were when a fad became obsolete. (I'm guilty of this too) Someone could be 5 years old using an iPad (3rd generation). Someone could be 38 years old using an iPad (3rd generation). What usually divides generations is a major historical event that changes the world. Like the end of WWII, or the internet boom in the mid/late 90's. It's debatable though, because not everybody agrees with these arbitrary cutoffs. It causes a lot of hostility between people. I'm not sure what historical event divides boomers/X and X/Y though.


It seems rather off when people define generations based on technology. It may be easy for them, but it seems like a stereotype to some. Why couldn't they just go with the pop cultural themes at the time? 1950s had rock n' roll, 1960s had psychedelic rock, 1970s had disco, 1980s had synthesizer pop, 1990s had Xtreme elements, 2000s had emo/urban rap (although it's not that strong), and 2010s had trap rap/dubstep. It's like they never really cared about it so much. Baby Boomers/Gen Xers grew up with 1950s-1980s music, Gen Yers grew up with 1980s-2000s music, and Gen Zers grew up with 2000s-2020s music. Technology can benefit either generation, and it doesn't really identify generations that much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/21/16 at 10:09 am


In all seriousness, I actually wish 1999/2000 babies were more associated with Gen Y. I grew up watching movies on a VCR, despite having a large collection of DVDs. Not to mention that I never knew what YouTube was until I was 7 1/2, which was when I was halfway over my childhood.
I understand how you feel, but technology doesn't truly define generations like some folks believe. I agree with Mqg and your other post which is why it's best to stick with events, facts, traits and other miscellaneous when describing cohorts. Technology do impact people, but that's only one factor.


It seems rather off when people define generations based on technology. It may be easy for them, but it seems like a stereotype to some. Why couldn't they just go with the pop cultural themes at the time? 1950s had rock n' roll, 1960s had psychedelic rock, 1970s had disco, 1980s had synthesizer pop, 1990s had Xtreme elements, 2000s had emo/urban rap (although it's not that strong), and 2010s had trap rap/dubstep. It's like they never really cared about it so much. Baby Boomers/Gen Xers grew up with 1950s-1980s music, Gen Yers grew up with 1980s-2000s music, and Gen Zers grew up with 2000s-2020s music. Technology can benefit either generation, and it doesn't really identify generations that much.
Yes! This also works completely, but for some reason the articles don't use pop culture to describe generations. Looking at it that way, The 1940s-early 60s belong to the Silents. The 1960s-early 80s are associated with the Boomers. The 1980s-mid 90s are affiliated with the MTV cohort (Gen X). The late 90s-early 10s have attachments to the Millennials and then from 2014-present, it now has a rapport with the Plurals.


When it comes to generations, I think a lot of people put too much emphasis on what age they were when some big technology came out or what age they were when a fad became obsolete. (I'm guilty of this too) Someone could be 5 years old using an iPad (3rd generation). Someone could be 38 years old using an iPad (3rd generation). What usually divides generations is a major historical event that changes the world. Like the end of WWII, or the internet boom in the mid/late 90's. It's debatable though, because not everybody agrees with these arbitrary cutoffs. It causes a lot of hostility between people. I'm not sure what historical event divides boomers/X and X/Y though.
We could say that Nixon's resignation divides the Boomer/X cusp since all of the former definitely recall that event while the latter barely does since they were mostly children. As for X/Y, the Cold War is also is a good one especially since the majority of Millennials don't actually remember this occurrence taking place while all of the Xers do.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/21/16 at 10:15 am


So would it be the opposite whereas if the more you deny being part of Gen Z the more Gen Z like you are LOL?


Why do you think I pretend to be Gen Z all the time? 

http://i.imgur.com/GPPbFrz.gif


When it comes to generations, I think a lot of people put too much emphasis on what age they were when some big technology came out or what age they were when a fad became obsolete. (I'm guilty of this too) Someone could be 5 years old using an iPad (3rd generation). Someone could be 38 years old using an iPad (3rd generation). What usually divides generations is a major historical event that changes the world. Like the end of WWII, or the internet boom in the mid/late 90's. It's debatable though, because not everybody agrees with these arbitrary cutoffs. It causes a lot of hostility between people. I'm not sure what historical event divides boomers/X and X/Y though.


To me, Gen X has always been people who can remember Cold War politics under Reagan, that's usually around people born 1965-1977ish. Gen Y to me was always who can remember the world before 9/11 or the 90s, can remember Bush era politics, and were negatively affected by the recession. That would usually be people born around from the early 80s to the mid 90s. No one really uses that definition anymore since Gen Y extends into the early 2000s.

It never had anything to do with pop culture to me. That changes every 2-4 years.



We could say that Nixon's resignation divides the Boomer/X cusp since all of the former definitely recall that event while the latter barely does since they were mostly children. As for X/Y, the Cold War is also is a good one especially since the majority of Millennials don't actually remember this occurrence taking place while all of the Xers do.


Bingo! That's what I always thought as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/21/16 at 11:03 am


I understand how you feel, but technology doesn't truly define generations like some folks believe. I agree with Mqg and your other post which is why it's best to stick with events, facts, traits and other miscellaneous when describing cohorts. Technology do impact people, but that's only one factor.


Generations shouldn't really define itself with technology at all sorts. You could be a child and somehow become fascinated towards VCRs. You could be an elderly man and you could enjoy using an iPad. That's why it barely makes any sense when people define a generation with technology.

Yes! This also works completely, but for some reason the articles don't use pop culture to describe generations. Looking at it that way, The 1940s-early 60s belong to the Silents. The 1960s-early 80s are associated with the Boomers. The 1980s-mid 90s are affiliated with the MTV cohort (Gen X). The late 90s-early 10s have attachments to the Millennials and then from 2014-present, it now has a rapport with the Plurals.

It works that way too. Depending on what music was really pandering towards teenagers though, which was somehow when the generations started to rise up.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/21/16 at 11:22 am


To me, Gen X has always been people who can remember Cold War politics under Reagan, that's usually around people born 1965-1977ish. Gen Y to me was always who can remember the world before 9/11 or the 90s, can remember Bush era politics, and were negatively affected by the recession. That would usually be people born around from the early 80s to the mid 90s. No one really uses that definition anymore since Gen Y extends into the early 2000s.

It never had anything to do with pop culture to me. That changes every 2-4 years.
Yeah, that's what comes to mind when discussing the occurrences that had a significance on Millennials and how they were powerly affected. The Recession had more of an effect on Gen Y than Gen Z. Same thing with the Bush politics. I can't see those events having an impact on folks post-1996 since they were children during that time and don't recall the things you mentioned. I can say in the end, the generation will span from the late 70s to mid 90s no matter what some people think since the former weren't truly affected by the Cold War especially because the event ended when they were 10/11 at the latest.

Well, it still works since pop culture does have an influence on the generations it's targeting. I mean right now, there's truly no way the Millennials are still the part of the audience especially that most are over college age, and have careers & families.


Generations shouldn't really define itself with technology at all sorts. You could be a child and somehow become fascinated towards VCRs. You could be an elderly man and you could enjoy using an iPad. That's why it barely makes any sense when people define a generation with technology.

It works that way too. Depending on what music was really pandering towards teenagers though, which was somehow when the generations started to rise up.
Right on man! Like I said before, while the TV, Telephone, and PC made history, it never at one point described the generations who witnessed them

Well we already know which type of pop culture starts targeting the next generation. it has its roots planted from TV programs and movies targeted towards them, songs that define them, and events that impact them in a powerful way more than the previous.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/21/16 at 11:30 am


Right on man! Like I said before, while the TV, Telephone, and PC made history, it never at one point described the generations who witnessed them


It never even targeted towards any generation. They just want anybody, regardless of age, to enjoy it. Especially television. It matters if the content is appropriate towards kids or adults.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 08/21/16 at 11:43 am


Do you think Gen Z culture began in 2013 or 2014?


Sort of. To me I think we're in a transition. Gen culture starts to take form once the oldest members of a certain gen becomes over age 18. For example to me Gen Y culture started in the late 1990s when early millennials were in their late teens. Now depending on where you put Gen Plural then I'd Plural culture would start at a different year. If you say 1995 (I see 1995 as late Millennials or Y/Z cusps that lean mostly on Millennials, but some see them as straight Gen Plural) then it'd start sometime in 2012, 2013, or 2015. If you start in 2000 then I'd say it would start sometime in 2017-2018. I'd say Gen Plural would have started sometime in 2013/14, but 2013/14 was more of a Y/Z hybrid year. In terms of kid and teen culture anythings. Adult culture is still millennial.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/21/16 at 1:33 pm


Yeah, that's what comes to mind when discussing the occurrences that had a significance on Millennials and how they were powerly affected. The Recession had more of an effect on Gen Y than Gen Z. Same thing with the Bush politics. I can't see those events having an impact on folks post-1996 since they were children during that time and don't recall the things you mentioned. I can say in the end, the generation will span from the late 70s to mid 90s no matter what some people think since the former weren't truly affected by the Cold War especially because the event ended when they were 10/11 at least.


That makes perfect sense, I remember the backlash against Bush throughout late 2006-2008. Mid 2006 and earlier I had no conscious of politics on the news.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 08/21/16 at 1:43 pm

And my group was the last people to spend the majority of their K-12 years without Barack Obama being president too, but it really has nothing to do with that anyway. UltraGameDog is right that the recession effected millennials/Y. People part of Gen Z didn't understand politics during the recession or stock market crash since they were too young. I remember back in 7th grade when the stock market crash/bailout happened in September 2008, and I understood what was going on.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/21/16 at 7:47 pm


It never even targeted towards any generation. They just want anybody, regardless of age, to enjoy it. Especially television. It matters if the content is appropriate towards kids or adults.
So true man!


Sort of. To me I think we're in a transition. Gen culture starts to take form once the oldest members of a certain gen becomes over age 18. For example to me Gen Y culture started in the late 1990s when early millennials were in their late teens. Now depending on where you put Gen Plural then I'd Plural culture would start at a different year. If you say 1995 (I see 1995 as late Millennials or Y/Z cusps that lean mostly on Millennials, but some see them as straight Gen Plural) then it'd start sometime in 2012, 2013, or 2015. If you start in 2000 then I'd say it would start sometime in 2017-2018. I'd say Gen Plural would have started sometime in 2013/14, but 2013/14 was more of a Y/Z hybrid year. In terms of kid and teen culture anythings. Adult culture is still millennial.
I say the same thing, but I truly believe the transition is almost over. We have been in the Plural targeted culture since at least 2014. 2013 and before, it was still pretty much for Millennials. As for the start of Gen Z, I really say it's late 90s for many many reasons.

And I agree. Most of the adult culture is definitely still for Millennials and even older generations as well.


That makes perfect sense, I remember the backlash against Bush throughout late 2006-2008. Mid 2006 and earlier I had no conscious of politics on the news.



And my group was the last people to spend the majority of their K-12 years without Barack Obama being president too, but it really has nothing to do with that anyway. UltraGameDog is right that the recession effected millennials/Y. People part of Gen Z didn't understand politics during the recession or stock market crash since they were too young. I remember back in 7th grade when the stock market crash/bailout happened in September 2008, and I understood what was going on.
I think you are understanding my points a lot better. I appreciate it man. Yeah, I wasn't making all those statements just to irritate some people. I was truly going by factors which includes the events that have impacted certain generations over time. Although the Recession has been over a while, the effects of it still linger on today. It's exactly why some Millennials have 2 jobs, are holding off on children and don't have their own spot. I don't think we will truly recover from this recession for a few more years unless the budget is much more balanced.

Going back to generations, I openly say that Plurals start in the late 90s and there's no doubt about that. Looking at articles I have read, they are correct on the generational spans and people can't deny that. I'm going with what Slowpoke stated. If one can't recall the Bush politics or any other events that largely affected Millennials, the person is part of the Plural cohort.

Oh and another thing, there's a misconception out there saying all 90s born folks are Millennials when that's definitely not true at all. The bulk of the generation are 80s folks with late 70s as the beginning and the mid 90s as the end. I just wanted to clear that up, so you or more other people don't get confused.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 08/21/16 at 9:06 pm


I understand how you feel, but technology doesn't truly define generations like some folks believe. I agree with Mqg and your other post which is why it's best to stick with events, facts, traits and other miscellaneous when describing cohorts. Technology do impact people, but that's only one factor.


I do think it's okay to use technology as a small factor in defining generational boundaries, just as long as it's not a major one. There are some types of technologies that become obsolete over time, making it where only people of a certain age would recall them. For example, the 8-track was replaced so quickly in the early '80s by the cassette, that very few people born after about 1975 would have any recollection of them at all.

Likewise, the VCR is all but completely nonexistent these days. You can't even buy blank cassette tapes in stores anymore. More likely than not, 99% of kids growing up in the 2010's will never use a VCR in their lives.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/21/16 at 9:22 pm


I do think it's okay to use technology as a small factor in defining generational boundaries, just as long as it's not a major one. There are some types of technologies that become obsolete over time, making it where only people of a certain age would recall them. For example, the 8-track was replaced so quickly in the early '80s by the cassette, that very few people born after about 1975 would have any recollection of them at all.

Likewise, the VCR is all but completely nonexistent these days. You can't even buy blank cassette tapes in stores anymore. More likely than not, 99% of kids growing up in the 2010's will never use a VCR in their lives.
Yeah, that's what I meant. It's just that I've seen some people use technology as a major element for generational cutoffs between Millennials and Plurals. Like for instance, with the Internet talking off and rising to popularity in 1995, some folks believe that if you don't remember a time before it was well known, then you're part of the Z generation. That's something that had irritated others since it was only a small factor to them and huge to other folks.

Now that it's been discussed, I can see Gen Xers the last generation to recall 8-Tracks being commonly used before they were discontinued. We could say the same thing with Millennials being the last to remember cassettes as well since Plurals don't remember them at all and will never use one in their lifetime.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/21/16 at 9:23 pm


I do think it's okay to use technology as a small factor in defining generational boundaries, just as long as it's not a major one. There are some types of technologies that become obsolete over time, making it where only people of a certain age would recall them. For example, the 8-track was replaced so quickly in the early '80s by the cassette, that very few people born after about 1975 would have any recollection of them at all.

Likewise, the VCR is all but completely nonexistent these days. You can't even buy blank cassette tapes in stores anymore. More likely than not, 99% of kids growing up in the 2010's will never use a VCR in their lives.


Well, you could buy used VCRs and VHS tapes at thrift stores, retro stores, and on eBay. It depends if the quality is good or not.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/22/16 at 1:53 pm


Well, you could buy used VCRs and VHS tapes at thrift stores, retro stores, and on eBay. It depends if the quality is good or not.
And other outdated technology such as Floppy Disks, Cassettes, 8-Tracks, Vinyl etc.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/22/16 at 2:12 pm


And other outdated technology such as Floppy Disks, Cassettes, 8-Tracks, Vinyl etc.


I wish I could buy cassette tapes and vinyl records. It would've been alright, since I find 8-track tapes to be pretty awful. Right now, most of them wouldn't really work that good.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 08/22/16 at 2:46 pm


I do think it's okay to use technology as a small factor in defining generational boundaries, just as long as it's not a major one. There are some types of technologies that become obsolete over time, making it where only people of a certain age would recall them. For example, the 8-track was replaced so quickly in the early '80s by the cassette, that very few people born after about 1975 would have any recollection of them at all.

Likewise, the VCR is all but completely nonexistent these days. You can't even buy blank cassette tapes in stores anymore. More likely than not, 99% of kids growing up in the 2010's will never use a VCR in their lives.


You get them on Ebay or amazon.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Willmisses2004 on 08/22/16 at 4:28 pm


I've seen that range, but no. I think Gen Z starts earlier than some people believe. I'm sure its late 90s. Besides, there's definitely no difference between a 2004 and a 2005 person.
That's only one source; however though, isn't their generation much bigger since their parents had almost up to 10 children at a time?
There's actually a variety of reasons why i has been seen that way. One, the birthrate increased in the late 70s. Two, the Internet rose to popularity right when they were either in high school or college. Three, they were still in the target audience for Y2K pop culture (American Pie anyone?) and last, a majority of them actually have BB parents rather than Silent ones.
Because the name refers to those who graduated around 2000, not those who were born around that period.
Well there's many reasons why it ends earlier than 2000 and it truly begins before 1982. I mean for one, this generation is pretty huge (much bigger than Gen X) and the events that had a significance on them didn't truly affect those born around 2000.
Besides Baby Boomers there is no precise date when generations start and end. Some 2004 babies actually know Clippy and MAYBE VHS, 2005 babies could possibly remember those though, but I doubt it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/22/16 at 4:34 pm


Besides Baby Boomers there is no precise date when generations start and end. Some 2004 babies actually know Clippy and MAYBE VHS, 2005 babies could possibly remember those though, but I doubt it.


Same with any kid, if they're somehow interested towards VHS tapes. There's a whole community on YouTube where they upload VHS openings and closings of certain movies and TV shows. Some of them are just little kids (maybe late 2000s babies at the slightest).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Willmisses2004 on 08/22/16 at 4:38 pm


Same with any kid, if they're somehow interested towards VHS tapes. There's a whole community on YouTube where they upload VHS openings and closings of certain movies and TV shows. Some of them are just little kids (maybe late 2000s babies at the slightest).
Late 2000s babies (as in 2007-2009) or Late 2000s kids (2002-2005)? If you mean babies, then why are they on YouTube already?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/22/16 at 4:44 pm


Late 2000s babies (as in 2007-2009) or Late 2000s kids (2002-2005)? If you mean babies, then why are they on YouTube already?


Late 2000s babies. I think they got interested towards VHS tapes, since they probably wondered what was it like before digital streaming services were popular.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Willmisses2004 on 08/22/16 at 4:44 pm


Late 2000s babies. I think they got interested towards VHS tapes, since they probably wondered what was it like before digital streaming services were popular.
Yep.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/22/16 at 4:47 pm


Yep.


Either that, or they were probably fascinated with the format from something. It's not like they mention the format on television nowadays, so it's unlikely for a lot of them to know what it is.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/22/16 at 5:15 pm


I do think it's okay to use technology as a small factor in defining generational boundaries, just as long as it's not a major one. There are some types of technologies that become obsolete over time, making it where only people of a certain age would recall them. For example, the 8-track was replaced so quickly in the early '80s by the cassette, that very few people born after about 1975 would have any recollection of them at all.

Likewise, the VCR is all but completely nonexistent these days. You can't even buy blank cassette tapes in stores anymore. More likely than not, 99% of kids growing up in the 2010's will never use a VCR in their lives.


It's not only about some old technology becoming obsolete, it's also that the Internet is different it seems to be young people (millennials) who are especially adept at using it. How many times have your Boomer/X relative asked you to fix their computer problem or how to use a smartphone?  ;D computers (and smartphones) definitely created a generational divide that telephones and television didn't. Those technologies are rather intuitive and all ages got into them, but the Internet feels like a millennial/Gen Z enclave.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/22/16 at 6:08 pm


It's not only about some old technology becoming obsolete, it's also that the Internet is different it seems to be young people (millennials) who are especially adept at using it. How many times have your Boomer/X relative asked you to fix their computer problem or how to use a smartphone?  ;D computers (and smartphones) definitely created a generational divide that telephones and television didn't. Those technologies are rather intuitive and all ages got into them, but the Internet feels like a millennial/Gen Z enclave.


Most people who were born before the 60s were probably the ones who had difficulties towards computers, in my opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/22/16 at 6:35 pm


Most people who were born before the 60s were probably the ones who had difficulties towards computers, in my opinion.


I have a lot of my relatives and people from my first job born in the 60s and early 70s who suck at it too tbh, although 70s babies aren't as bad as 60s babies. Late 70s babies are pretty much honorary millennials when it comes to the Internet.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/22/16 at 6:42 pm


I have a lot of my relatives and people from my first job born in the 60s and early 70s who suck at it too tbh, although 70s babies aren't as bad as 60s babies. Late 70s babies are pretty much honorary millennials when it comes to the Internet.


I think it has to deal with that my family (especially my mom's side) loves to read so much, and have a decent amount of technology. That and my uncle is a tech whiz.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 08/23/16 at 3:51 am



Going back to generations, I openly say that Plurals start in the late 90s and there's no doubt about that. Looking at articles I have read, they are correct on the generational spans and people can't deny that. I'm going with what Slowpoke stated. If one can't recall the Bush politics or any other events that largely affected Millennials, the person is part of the Plural cohort.

Oh and another thing, there's a misconception out there saying all 90s born folks are Millennials when that's definitely not true at all. The bulk of the generation are 80s folks with late 70s as the beginning and the mid 90s as the end. I just wanted to clear that up, so you or more other people don't get confused.


I can agree with that as someone born in 1999. The first year I paid any attention to politics was 2008, and it was mostly election stuff. I mainly remember things like Xbox, YouTube, trips, music, and stuff like that, no big events, since I was a kid.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 08/23/16 at 4:12 am


I have a lot of my relatives and people from my first job born in the 60s and early 70s who suck at it too tbh, although 70s babies aren't as bad as 60s babies. Late 70s babies are pretty much honorary millennials when it comes to the Internet.

That's not my experience.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 08/23/16 at 4:48 am


I have a lot of my relatives and people from my first job born in the 60s and early 70s who suck at it too tbh, although 70s babies aren't as bad as 60s babies. Late 70s babies are pretty much honorary millennials when it comes to the Internet.


Hmm, my dad was born in the late '60s, and knows how to use everything very well, my mom was born in '75, which I guess you're right about the honorary millennial thing, my mom is obsessed with the (mainly social media) Internet.

I have my grandparents who were born in the early '50s, and they can use it fine, not great, but fine. My other grandparents on the other hand really struggle with it, my grandma was born in 1949, and is trying to learn how to use a computer, and my grandpa who was born in the early mid '40s kind of ignores it all. I guess everyone has different experiences, so it's hard to tell.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/23/16 at 6:51 am


Hmm, my dad was born in the late '60s, and knows how to use everything very well, my mom was born in '75, which I guess you're right about the honorary millennial thing, my mom is obsessed with the (mainly social media) Internet.

I have my grandparents who were born in the early '50s, and they can use it fine, not great, but fine. My other grandparents on the other hand really struggle with it, my grandma was born in 1949, and is trying to learn how to use a computer, and my grandpa who was born in the early mid '40s kind of ignores it all. I guess everyone has different experiences, so it's hard to tell.


I have relatives who are basically older than yours. Especially my grandparents.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 08/23/16 at 10:06 am


I have relatives who are basically older than yours. Especially my grandparents.

Yeah, the oldest relative I have that's alive is my 95 (I think she's 95, she has two birthdays, no one knows the real one  :o )year old great grandma.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/23/16 at 10:08 am


Yeah, the oldest relative I have that's alive is my 95 (I think she's 95, she has two birthdays, no one knows the real one  :o )year old great grandma.


My oldest relative (from my mom's side) is 100 years old, and she lives in Canada.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/23/16 at 10:36 am


Hmm, my dad was born in the late '60s, and knows how to use everything very well, my mom was born in '75, which I guess you're right about the honorary millennial thing, my mom is obsessed with the (mainly social media) Internet.

I have my grandparents who were born in the early '50s, and they can use it fine, not great, but fine. My other grandparents on the other hand really struggle with it, my grandma was born in 1949, and is trying to learn how to use a computer, and my grandpa who was born in the early mid '40s kind of ignores it all. I guess everyone has different experiences, so it's hard to tell.


I guess it depends on the job one has. My mom born 1966 sucks at computers. She's a housewife and didn't first use a computer until we got one in 1997 when she was 30 years old. My uncle born 1970 who's a construction worker is largely the same, except he didn't computer until 2004. I also knew a few people at my first job born in the early 1970s who asked for help with every little computer problem, though I guess to be fair it's not like they were completely clueless.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/23/16 at 11:12 am


I wish I could buy cassette tapes and vinyl records. It would've been alright, since I find 8-track tapes to be pretty awful. Right now, most of them wouldn't really work that good.
You must be a old tech geek aren't you? ;)


Besides Baby Boomers there is no precise date when generations start and end. Some 2004 babies actually know Clippy and MAYBE VHS, 2005 babies could possibly remember those though, but I doubt it.
That doesn't mean they are Millennials though. You have to look at the events, traits, atmosphere and other misc that have effects on each generations. Everything that had a significance on Millennials are things that mid 00s folks are clearly not going to remember.


As for the dates, there's none exactly yet; however. we know that Gen X is early/mid 60s to mid/late 70s; Millennials is late 70s to mid 90s and Plurals is late 90s to present.


It's not only about some old technology becoming obsolete, it's also that the Internet is different it seems to be young people (millennials) who are especially adept at using it. How many times have your Boomer/X relative asked you to fix their computer problem or how to use a smartphone?  ;D computers (and smartphones) definitely created a generational divide that telephones and television didn't. Those technologies are rather intuitive and all ages got into them, but the Internet feels like a millennial/Gen Z enclave.
This so much!! Many of my older relatives had asked me how to do this or that with PCs and/or smartphones. I don't blame them for that since they obviously didn't grow up with these things. I say the main reason for the divide is that the TV and Telephone were physical while the Internet is digital.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/23/16 at 11:36 am


You must be a old tech geek aren't you? ;)


I never really used vinyl records before, despite having my parents owning a large collection of them. They even have a record player, even though it's somehow broken. I tried to use it when I played their copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller, but I could barely hear it. I could've said that I wish I had a record player that's in good use. Same with cassette tapes. They have two cassette/CD/radio combo players, which both work. I also have a small collection of VHS tapes, about seven tapes to be precise. The only thing I need for them to play is a working VCR. My dad threw the family's one out, which is dull because I wanted to watch some VHS tapes to this day.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 08/23/16 at 2:48 pm


Hmm, my dad was born in the late '60s, and knows how to use everything very well, my mom was born in '75, which I guess you're right about the honorary millennial thing, my mom is obsessed with the (mainly social media) Internet.

I have my grandparents who were born in the early '50s, and they can use it fine, not great, but fine. My other grandparents on the other hand really struggle with it, my grandma was born in 1949, and is trying to learn how to use a computer, and my grandpa who was born in the early mid '40s kind of ignores it all. I guess everyone has different experiences, so it's hard to tell.


My father was born in 1941 and he's a guru of almost everything internet and my Mother she's also obsessed with the computer.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 08/23/16 at 2:49 pm


Yeah, the oldest relative I have that's alive is my 95 (I think she's 95, she has two birthdays, no one knows the real one  :o )year old great grandma.


My grandmother who will be 99 in November.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/23/16 at 9:08 pm


I never really used vinyl records before, despite having my parents owning a large collection of them. They even have a record player, even though it's somehow broken. I tried to use it when I played their copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller, but I could barely hear it. I could've said that I wish I had a record player that's in good use. Same with cassette tapes. They have two cassette/CD/radio combo players, which both work. I also have a small collection of VHS tapes, about seven tapes to be precise. The only thing I need for them to play is a working VCR. My dad threw the family's one out, which is dull because I wanted to watch some VHS tapes to this day.
You might be able to find some of these  online in good condition hopefully. It would be great to check out Amazon. They have lots great things.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/23/16 at 9:23 pm


You might be able to find some of these  online in good condition hopefully. It would be great to check out Amazon. They have lots great things.


Most of the VCRs that I see on Amazon don't really come with a remote, and they're somehow expensive. I could buy one from eBay, but I don't want to make an account for it. I could maybe get one from my grandma, but I'm not really sure if she still uses it or not.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/23/16 at 9:24 pm


Most of the VCRs that I see on Amazon don't really come with a remote, and they're somehow expensive. I could buy one from eBay, but I don't want to make an account for it. I could maybe get one from my grandma, but I'm not really sure if she still uses it or not.
Well you could ask her.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/23/16 at 9:35 pm


Well you could ask her.


Yeah, but I don't really like going to her house. She wants me to, but I'll politely say no to her. I know she's my grandma and all, but sometimes her house makes me uncomfortable. It's rather cramped, per se. As in, she has a lot of stuff in her house.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/24/16 at 12:25 pm


Yeah, but I don't really like going to her house. She wants me to, but I'll politely say no to her. I know she's my grandma and all, but sometimes her house makes me uncomfortable. It's rather cramped, per se. As in, she has a lot of stuff in her house.


My grandparents' homes were like that too. When my maternal grandma passed away 2 1/2 years ago, we had to clean out her house and sell it; as we went through all the stuff in there, we were surprised to see how much stuff was there! Similarly, my paternal grandpa passed on last month and now we have to clear out his home, but there's lots more stuff involved there; plus, it's a much longer distance from our house than my maternal grandparents' home was. In both cases, however, we've had to do plenty of discarding.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/24/16 at 12:59 pm


My grandparents' homes were like that too. When my maternal grandma passed away 2 1/2 years ago, we had to clean out her house and sell it; as we went through all the stuff in there, we were surprised to see how much stuff was there! Similarly, my paternal grandpa passed on last month and now we have to clear out his home, but there's lots more stuff involved there; plus, it's a much longer distance from our house than my maternal grandparents' home was. In both cases, however, we've had to do plenty of discarding.


I feel like my family has to do the same thing if my grandma dies, since there's a lot of crap she owned from the 60s to the present. Although, if that happens, I'm keeping her VCR.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/24/16 at 1:05 pm


I feel like my family has to do the same thing if my grandma dies, since there's a lot of crap she owned from the 60s to the present. Although, if that happens, I'm keeping her VCR.


That was uncomfortably morbid lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/24/16 at 1:09 pm


That was uncomfortably morbid lol.


Well, it's not like anybody who like to have a VCR at this day and age.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/24/16 at 1:27 pm

Interesting what Chloe Grace Mortez; born in early 1997 said at the DNC... I wonder what markese thinks?
Q1y2bOhQUA0

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/24/16 at 1:31 pm


Interesting what Chloe Grace Mortez; born in early 1997 said at the DNC... I wonder what markese thinks?
Q1y2bOhQUA0


At least Chloe would vote for Hillary in November.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/24/16 at 2:03 pm


Interesting what Chloe Grace Mortez; born in early 1997 said at the DNC... I wonder what markese thinks?
Q1y2bOhQUA0
When she said she was a Millennial? I say she would be one of the last in this generation. Either the cutoff is 1994, 1996, 1998, or 2000. It can't be earlier or later than that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/24/16 at 2:10 pm


I feel like my family has to do the same thing if my grandma dies, since there's a lot of crap she owned from the 60s to the present. Although, if that happens, I'm keeping her VCR.

On a similar note, we kept one TV that my maternal grandma had. Just so that we have another HD TV set.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/24/16 at 2:12 pm


Well, it's not like anybody who like to have a VCR at this day and age.

So true. Unless, perhaps, such units also contain DVD players. They make 'em like that. In fact, I have a DVD-VCR combo unit in my house, which I discussed on another thread recently.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 08/24/16 at 2:15 pm


When she said she was a Millennial? I say she would be one of the last in this generation. Either the cutoff is 1994, 1996, 1998, or 2000. It can't be earlier or later than that.

I agree 100% I think 2000 is the VERY last.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/24/16 at 2:31 pm


So true. Unless, perhaps, such units also contain DVD players. They make 'em like that. In fact, I have a DVD-VCR combo unit in my house, which I discussed on another thread recently.


That's true. But I'll rather have a VCR, even if it's a DVD-VCR combo player. For the fact that I never operated a VCR since early 2009, it makes me wish that I had one every day.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/24/16 at 2:34 pm


When she said she was a Millennial? I say she would be one of the last in this generation. Either the cutoff is 1994, 1996, 1998, or 2000. It can't be earlier or later than that.


Ivanka, queen of the millennials (b. 1981), said she was one too. I think Don Jr. (b. 1977) of bad tan infame said he was a millennial too but I can't sit through that speech again to find out. Eric (b. 1984) (the king of... Idk, but if you donate $3 you can win a date with Eric! That female and gay outreach!!) said he was millennial too. Tiffany (b. 1993) is definitely Gen Z. Have you heard her latest single? A Rebecca Black brew.

LVpu6MnXBhQ

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/24/16 at 2:37 pm


Ivanka, queen of the millennials (b. 1981), said she was one too. I think Don Jr. (b. 1977) of bad tan infame said he was a millennial too but I can't sit through that speech again to find out. Eric (b. 1984) (the king of... Idk, but if you donate $3 you can win a date with Eric! That female and gay outreach!!) said he was millennial too. Tiffany (b. 1993) is definitely Gen Z. Have you heard her latest single? A Rebecca Black brew.

LVpu6MnXBhQ


The autotune doesn't sound that bad to her.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/24/16 at 2:41 pm


The autotune doesn't sound that bad to her.


Did we hear the same song?!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/24/16 at 2:44 pm


Did we hear the same song?!


Um... I listened to the song that you had from the YouTube link. I didn't know if Tiffany was on autotune or not.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/24/16 at 2:48 pm


Um... I listened to the song that you had from the YouTube link. I didn't know if Tiffany was on autotune or not.


I don't see how you can like that song but hate 2010s music lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/24/16 at 3:01 pm


I don't see how you can like that song but hate 2010s music lol.


I think her singing is beautiful, but I don't like 2010s music in general. Especially when most of the music that I hear nowadays is just trap rap, R&B that doesn't really make a lot of sense, and weird pop music.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 08/24/16 at 3:07 pm


Most of the VCRs that I see on Amazon don't really come with a remote, and they're somehow expensive. I could buy one from eBay, but I don't want to make an account for it. I could maybe get one from my grandma, but I'm not really sure if she still uses it or not.


Are they the old school ones?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/24/16 at 3:10 pm


Are they the old school ones?


Well... not really. I don't know how old my grandma's VCR is.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/24/16 at 3:46 pm


I think her singing is beautiful, but I don't like 2010s music in general. Especially when most of the music that I hear nowadays is just trap rap, R&B that doesn't really make a lot of sense, and weird pop music.


There's not much trap rap or traditional R&B on the charts. It's mostly EDM, the same super-genre as that song, but a million times better.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/24/16 at 3:49 pm


There's not much trap rap or traditional R&B on the charts. It's mostly EDM, the same super-genre as that song, but a million times better.


I don't think it's like that in the United States.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 08/24/16 at 5:39 pm


There's not much trap rap or traditional R&B on the charts. It's mostly EDM, the same super-genre as that song, but a million times better.

Yeah, EDM music is the most common genre I hear on the radio where I'm from, although, there is rap, and R&B is usually R&B/Pop.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/24/16 at 5:40 pm


Yeah, EDM music is the most common genre I hear on the radio where I'm from, although, there is rap, and R&B is usually R&B/Pop.


I think it's different in Canada. In the United States, you hear a lot of EDM, rap, and R&B. I don't know what it is like for Canadian music nowadays, but it could be similar with Justin Bieber and Drake being popular.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 08/24/16 at 6:09 pm


I think it's different in Canada. In the United States, you hear a lot of EDM, rap, and R&B. I don't know what it is like for Canadian music nowadays, but it could be similar with Justin Bieber and Drake being popular.


Here is the American Billboard Hot 100 of the week: http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100

Here is the Canadian Billboard Hot 100 of the week: http://www.billboard.com/charts/canadian-hot-100

I thought it would be a good way to compare at least popular music currently.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/24/16 at 6:58 pm


Here is the American Billboard Hot 100 of the week: http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100

Here is the Canadian Billboard Hot 100 of the week: http://www.billboard.com/charts/canadian-hot-100

I thought it would be a good way to compare at least popular music currently.


It's pretty much the same, except we have more Shawn Mendes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/24/16 at 11:30 pm


I agree 100% I think 2000 is the VERY last.
Let's hope so. Your view may be wrong in the media one day.


Ivanka, queen of the millennials (b. 1981), said she was one too. I think Don Jr. (b. 1977) of bad tan infame said he was a millennial too but I can't sit through that speech again to find out. Eric (b. 1984) (the king of... Idk, but if you donate $3 you can win a date with Eric! That female and gay outreach!!) said he was millennial too. Tiffany (b. 1993) is definitely Gen Z. Have you heard her latest single? A Rebecca Black brew.

LVpu6MnXBhQ
No I haven't, but that doesn't mean she's part of Gen Z. Besides, when does making a heavily autotune song automatically make you a Plural? Honestly, since this generation is so large, I can see it being 1977 to 1998/2000.


It's pretty much the same, except we have more Shawn Mendes.
Aren't certain artists more popular in Canada than here in America?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 08/24/16 at 11:33 pm


Let's hope so. Your view may be wrong in the media one day.
No I haven't, but that doesn't mean she's part of Gen Z. Besides, when does making a heavily autotune song automatically make you a Plural? Honestly, since this generation is so large, I can see it being 1977 to 1998/2000.
Aren't certain artists more popular in Canada than here in America?

He's being a troll again.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/25/16 at 1:53 am


He's being a troll again.
Who me or Eric?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 08/25/16 at 1:57 am


Who me or Eric?

Slowpoke. He likes to joke that 1993-borns are Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 08/25/16 at 2:14 am


Slowpoke. He likes to joke that 1993-born are Z.
Ohhnh ;D. Yeah, he does that only because he senses that he Gen Z traits ;D and he believes that the cohort begins earlier than the specified date.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 08/25/16 at 2:40 am


Ivanka, queen of the millennials (b. 1981), said she was one too. I think Don Jr. (b. 1977) of bad tan infame said he was a millennial too but I can't sit through that speech again to find out. Eric (b. 1984) (the king of... Idk, but if you donate $3 you can win a date with Eric! That female and gay outreach!!) said he was millennial too. Tiffany (b. 1993) is definitely Gen Z. Have you heard her latest single? A Rebecca Black brew.

LVpu6MnXBhQ

That song is from 2010 or so.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/25/16 at 7:48 am


Slowpoke. He likes to joke that 1993-borns are Z.


Exposed!


That song is from 2010 or so.


I believe it's from 2011.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 08/25/16 at 7:50 am

I think that song is a butterchorus. The first verse is actually kind of cute, but when the chorus kicks in, it starts to suck.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/25/16 at 8:28 am


I think that song is a butterchorus. The first verse is actually kind of cute, but when the chorus kicks in, it starts to suck.


The lyrics are extremely cringe worthy.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/25/16 at 11:03 am


That's true. But I'll rather have a VCR, even if it's a DVD-VCR combo player. For the fact that I never operated a VCR since early 2009, it makes me wish that I had one every day.

yeah, I pretty much grew up with a VCR; I was 7 when we got our first one. And I pretty much learned how to operate them without too much trouble.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 08/25/16 at 11:07 am


Exposed!

I believe it's from 2011.


"This is some s*** you'd hear in a Korean drama. Like some crying bitch in a wedding gown is running in slow motion across a field while some guy in a fancy suit watches her from behind smoking a cigarette and putting on his sunglasses. When the rapping starts the man in the suit points his finger at her like a gun and a sniper shoots her in the back before cutting to a baby waking up in a crib, staring at the camera, and beginning to cry before fading to black.

Damn now I want to watch my own movie."

Here's a comment on the video. Speaking of which, I've always believed that this 2005 song was like something from a '00s Korean drama:
CPdzzwoeMpU

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Richbrings2life on 08/25/16 at 11:26 am


So it would make sense that the tail-end millennials will have to end at early 1997, since this year election has a huge impact on millennials, who are adults now not teenagers which is 1998-presents? and to me the 1997ers are also early 2010's teens as well and like you said the pop culture of millennials are from late 1990's to early 2010's not mid 2010's which is gen z era now

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Richbrings2life on 08/25/16 at 11:32 am

Let's deal with it people, millennials are born between 1981 and 1997, and who are kids from very late 80's, 90's and early 2000's; teenagers of late  1990's, 2000's and early 2010's. And the birth years that is seen pinpoints that pop culture years of the generation. And also this year election has a huge impact on that generation who are now adults, not teenagers which is plurals and their pop culture (late 2013-present) is remaining while millennials are moving on with their lives with university, careers, marriage, family, and other adults life styles. PERIOD.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/25/16 at 1:17 pm


"This is some s*** you'd hear in a Korean drama. Like some crying bitch in a wedding gown is running in slow motion across a field while some guy in a fancy suit watches her from behind smoking a cigarette and putting on his sunglasses. When the rapping starts the man in the suit points his finger at her like a gun and a sniper shoots her in the back before cutting to a baby waking up in a crib, staring at the camera, and beginning to cry before fading to black.

Damn now I want to watch my own movie."

Here's a comment on the video. Speaking of which, I've always believed that this 2005 song is like something from a '00s Korean drama:
CPdzzwoeMpU


Omg that is 100% K-drama music. Eerie. The Tiffany song doesn't sound very K-drama. Maybe a 2010s one. Last K-drama I watched was You're Beautiful in 2012.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 08/25/16 at 4:14 pm


yeah, I pretty much grew up with a VCR; I was 7 when we got our first one. And I pretty much learned how to operate them without too much trouble.


I grew up with VCRs too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Fearsword on 08/25/16 at 6:27 pm

As a 1995 born, I used VCRs up until I was 14! My family didn't even get a DVD player till 2004.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/25/16 at 6:34 pm


yeah, I pretty much grew up with a VCR; I was 7 when we got our first one. And I pretty much learned how to operate them without too much trouble.


Same with myself. Although, being an imaginative and curious kid that I was, I once played with a VHS tape. I was pulling the tape out to see what it looks like, but my mom took it away from me because I didn't know that much about the tape being the only way it could play.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/25/16 at 11:50 pm


As a 1995 born, I used VCRs up until I was 14! My family didn't even get a DVD player till 2004.

It was about 2006 when we got our first unit with a DVD player, I think.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 08/26/16 at 3:01 am

When I was 10 years old, I used to experiment with VHS tapes. What I would do, is I would record something off a channel on my set-top box, however I would mute the audio and then I would record something off an analogue TV channel. This would result in the audio being completely different than the audio from the channel that I recorded on my set-top box. Here is an example of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT0SYI_CWDU

Who knew that sausages could attack? :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 08/26/16 at 3:12 am


As a 1995 born, I used VCRs up until I was 14! My family didn't even get a DVD player till 2004.


As you may know, JB HI FI still sold brand new VHS tapes as recently as 2008. However, they were definitely starting to decline in popularity at the time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/26/16 at 8:54 am


When I was 10 years old, I used to experiment with VHS tapes. What I would do, is I would record something off a channel on my set-top box, however I would mute the audio and then I would record something off an analogue TV channel. This would result in the audio being completely different than the audio from the channel that I recorded on my set-top box. Here is an example of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT0SYI_CWDU

Who knew that sausages could attack? :P


Seems nice. You have a cool VHS channel, from what I'm seeing.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 08/26/16 at 9:14 am


Seems nice. You have a cool VHS channel, from what I'm seeing.


Thanks NewYorkEagle. :)

My most recent uploads are mostly just TV stuff that I have recorded through my PVR, however a lot of my older uploads are of VHS content. I have a few Nickelodeon recordings from 2006 and 2007 on the channel as well, however I don't have any recordings of Cartoon Network or Disney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EANOjOqxFEU

I don't know how similar the Australian Nickelodeon is to the US version, although the programming would pretty much be the same.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/26/16 at 9:26 am


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EANOjOqxFEU

I don't know how similar the Australian Nickelodeon is to the US version, although the programming would pretty much be the same.


The promos seem really different compared to the US version.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/26/16 at 6:49 pm


When I was 10 years old, I used to experiment with VHS tapes. What I would do, is I would record something off a channel on my set-top box, however I would mute the audio and then I would record something off an analogue TV channel. This would result in the audio being completely different than the audio from the channel that I recorded on my set-top box. Here is an example of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT0SYI_CWDU

Who knew that sausages could attack? :P


Heehee!! Did you create that yourself? :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/26/16 at 6:50 pm


As you may know, JB HI FI still sold brand new VHS tapes as recently as 2008. However, they were definitely starting to decline in popularity at the time.

They've been declining in popularity ever since DVD machines got popular.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Willmisses2004 on 08/26/16 at 9:44 pm


Here's another poll. Which definition of Gen X do you find to be more correct?

http://www.strawpoll.me/11088966
First.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 08/27/16 at 7:15 am


Here's another poll. Which definition of Gen X do you find to be more correct?

http://www.strawpoll.me/11088966


1965-1980

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 08/27/16 at 7:45 am


Heehee!! Did you create that yourself? :D


Yes I did. :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/27/16 at 10:42 am


Yes I did. :)

Very clever. O0

Makes me wish, in retrospect, that I could do something like that...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 08/31/16 at 9:36 pm

My mom talks to her friends on landline while texting the same person on her smartphone at the same time. A true Gen X/Millennial cusp.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 08/31/16 at 10:33 pm


My mom talks to her friends on landline while texting the same person on her smartphone at the same time. A true Gen X/Millennial cusp.

My mom also texts on her smartphone while talking to people on the landline (not necessarily the same person, though).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 09/08/16 at 8:12 pm

I'm X/Y cusp. I bought both Pokémon X and Pokémon Y! I have two copies of X though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 09/14/16 at 8:26 pm


I'm X/Y cusp. I bought both Pokémon X and Pokémon Y! I have two copies of X though.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yeah, you are! ;). Having Pokemon X and Y absolutely makes you part of the X.Y transition.  ;) ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/17/16 at 3:41 am

This system might work. It's based on the decades in which people graduated. It's far from perfect because the oldest members and youngest members don't have identical touchstones. Really, your age group (+/- five years) might be the best way to define generations.

New Way:
1940s - Big Band Generation/World War II Generation
1950s - Elvis Generation/Eisenhower Generation
1960s - Beatles Generation/Boomer Generation
1970s - Disco Generation/Generation Jones
1980s - New Wave Generation/Reagan Generation
1990s - Grunge Rock Generation/Clinton Generation
2000s - Technology Generation/Millennial Generation
2010s - 9/11 Generation/Post-Liberty Generation*

*This generation doesn't recall much before 9/11. They're in an age group that may think that our current system is normal because they're too young to recall the freedom and security of the past. They, with some members of the Technology Generation, are responsible for hipsters, as well as the social justice cult. I have hope that the pro-liberty kids will take the reins soon.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/17/16 at 5:30 am


I think if you don't remember Reagan being the president in his first term, you aren't Gen X. If you don't remember 9/11, you aren't Millennial. If you don't remember the JFK assassination, you aren't a baby boomer. What do you think of these rules of thumb?


You're spot on with that. It makes perfect sense.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/17/16 at 8:38 am


This system might work. It's based on the decades in which people graduated. It's far from perfect because the oldest members and youngest members don't have identical touchstones. Really, your age group (+/- five years) might be the best way to define generations.

New Way:
1940s - Big Band Generation/World War II Generation
1950s - Elvis Generation/Eisenhower Generation
1960s - Beatles Generation/Boomer Generation
1970s - Disco Generation/Generation Jones
1980s - New Wave Generation/Reagan Generation
1990s - Grunge Rock Generation/Clinton Generation
2000s - Technology Generation/Millennial Generation
2010s - 9/11 Generation/Post-Liberty Generation*

*This generation doesn't recall much before 9/11. They're in an age group that may think that our current system is normal because they're too young to recall the freedom and security of the past. They, with some members of the Technology Generation, are responsible for hipsters, as well as the social justice cult. I have hope that the pro-liberty kids will take the reins soon.


I was born in 1999. What generation do you think I'm in?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 09/17/16 at 8:58 am


I was born in 1999. What generation do you think I'm in?


You graduate in 2017 so you'd be in the 2010s generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/17/16 at 9:32 am


You graduate in 2017 so you'd be in the 2010s generation.


Well, either way, I do graduate in the late 2010s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 09/17/16 at 10:10 am


I was born in 1999. What generation do you think I'm in?

How about me?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 09/17/16 at 1:43 pm


You graduate in 2017 so you'd be in the 2010s generation.


I graduated 25 years, Where would I fit in?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/17/16 at 1:43 pm


I graduated 25 years, Where would I fit in?


Twenty five years ago? I think maybe in either the 1980s or 1990s generation. But I'm not sure.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/17/16 at 8:55 pm


I was born in 1999. What generation do you think I'm in?


You're in the 9/11 Generation. You don't recall much before 9/11.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/17/16 at 8:56 pm


You're in the 9/11 Generation. You don't recall much before 9/11.


Good point.  :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/17/16 at 8:58 pm


How about me?


I don't know. When did you graduate from high school?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/17/16 at 8:59 pm


I graduated 25 years, Where would I fit in?


You're in the grunge rock cohort of Generation X. You're in the Clinton Generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 09/18/16 at 12:22 am


How about me?
I was born in 1996.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/18/16 at 1:03 am


I was born in 1996.


You're a member of the 9/11 Generation. You were likely in kindergarten on that fateful day.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 09/18/16 at 2:49 pm


You're in the grunge rock cohort of Generation X. You're in the Clinton Generation.


Thanks. :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/18/16 at 9:55 pm


Thanks. :)


You're welcome. Keep in mind that I'm not a demographer or an expert. It's a system to replace the old systems. The old systems don't reflect reality.

I don't put much stock into much of these categories. Older members and younger members, of a given generation, might not share a lot in common. That's why age makes more sense than labels. You have more in common with people around your age, even if you're not in the same categories.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 09/18/16 at 10:15 pm


You're welcome. Keep in mind that I'm not a demographer or an expert. It's a system to replace the old systems. The old systems don't reflect reality.

I don't put much stock into much of these categories. Older members and younger members, of a given generation, might not share a lot in common. That's why age makes more sense than labels. You have more in common with people around your age, even if you're not in the same categories.


What birth years would you call the Reagan Generation?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 09/19/16 at 5:49 am


This system might work. It's based on the decades in which people graduated. It's far from perfect because the oldest members and youngest members don't have identical touchstones. Really, your age group (+/- five years) might be the best way to define generations.

New Way:
1940s - Big Band Generation/World War II Generation
1950s - Elvis Generation/Eisenhower Generation
1960s - Beatles Generation/Boomer Generation
1970s - Disco Generation/Generation Jones
1980s - New Wave Generation/Reagan Generation
1990s - Grunge Rock Generation/Clinton Generation
2000s - Technology Generation/Millennial Generation
2010s - 9/11 Generation/Post-Liberty Generation*

*This generation doesn't recall much before 9/11. They're in an age group that may think that our current system is normal because they're too young to recall the freedom and security of the past. They, with some members of the Technology Generation, are responsible for hipsters, as well as the social justice cult. I have hope that the pro-liberty kids will take the reins soon.
What are your definitions of every generation? Where do you draw the line between the Technology Generation and the 9/11 Generation?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/19/16 at 6:43 am


  What are your definitions of every generation? Where do you draw the line between the Technology Generation and the 9/11 Generation?


Well, he said that you probably had to be old enough to understand 9/11, thus making you part of the Technology Generation. As somebody who was only a baby during 9/11, it makes sense. It might have to deal with your adolescent years instead of your childhood.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 09/19/16 at 2:03 pm


What birth years would you call the Reagan Generation?

hm, good question. Considering he was President for most of my single-digit years (I was born in '80), I may or may not be part of it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/19/16 at 2:09 pm


hm, good question. Considering he was President for most of my single-digit years (I was born in '80), I may or may not be part of it.


'43 Bush was the same, since he was president through most of my single digit years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 09/19/16 at 5:00 pm


hm, good question. Considering he was President for most of my single-digit years (I was born in '80), I may or may not be part of it.


I consider the Reagan Generation to be born from 1965-1972, in other words, early Gen Xers...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 09/19/16 at 5:08 pm


I consider the Reagan Generation to be born from 1965-1972, in other words, early Gen Xers...

So then that wouldn't include me. Would I be in the "Bill Clinton Generation" then, since he was president during all of my teenage years?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 09/19/16 at 5:14 pm


So then that wouldn't include me. Would I be in the "Bill Clinton Generation" then, since he was president during all of my teenage years?


Yes. I'd see you as the Bill Clinton generation and as an XY cusper.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 09/19/16 at 5:31 pm


Yes. I'd see you as the Bill Clinton generation and as an XY cusper.

Thanks.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/19/16 at 9:52 pm


What birth years would you call the Reagan Generation?


I go by high school graduation years instead of birth years. The Reagan Generation is comprised of people who graduated in the 1980s. My system isn't perfect, and the +/- 5 system is better in that it groups people by age. I like it better than the other systems, though. Look at two individuals, somebody born in '64 and somebody born in '65. The first person is a Boomer while the second person is an X'er. It's silly to pretend that they're not in the same generation. They have more in common with each other than they do with people at the extremes of their supposed generations.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/19/16 at 9:59 pm


What are your definitions of every generation? Where do you draw the line between the Technology Generation and the 9/11 Generation?


I go by high school graduation years. It's arbitrary at the cusps. It's not exact or perfect by any means, but it's better than the generation definitions that have huge age gaps between members of given generations. Really, it makes the most sense to say that you have the most in common with people your age.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/19/16 at 10:03 pm


So then that wouldn't include me. Would I be in the "Bill Clinton Generation" then, since he was president during all of my teenage years?


You would if you GRADUATED in the '90s. I think that you would be categorized as an X'er in the unrealistic system with the ridiculous age range that isn't based on shared experience.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 09/19/16 at 10:08 pm


You graduate in 2017 so you'd be in the 2010s generation.

Well... if he lived here in Missouri ;he'd graduate in 2018 tho. :o Since he was born in Dec. ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 09/19/16 at 10:09 pm


You would if you GRADUATED in the '90s. I think that you would be categorized as an X'er in the unrealistic system with the ridiculous age range that isn't based on shared experience.

What bout me? since I was born in Oct 1995, and graduated in 2014.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 09/19/16 at 11:17 pm


You would if you GRADUATED in the '90s. I think that you would be categorized as an X'er in the unrealistic system with the ridiculous age range that isn't based on shared experience.


Someone who graduated in 1990 had the 80s high school experience.
They were only there half of 1990 and 1990 itself had lots of 80s influence.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 09/20/16 at 12:50 am


Someone who graduated in 1990 had the 80s high school experience.
They were only there half of 1990 and 1990 itself had lots of 80s influence.

Agreed!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 09/20/16 at 7:40 pm


You would if you GRADUATED in the '90s. I think that you would be categorized as an X'er in the unrealistic system with the ridiculous age range that isn't based on shared experience.

Well I did graduate in the 90's: 1998. That's half my life ago!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/20/16 at 10:49 pm


What bout me? since I was born in Oct 1995, and graduated in 2014.


You're in the 9/11 Generation. You came of age after 9/11. I posted the generation categories and the graduation years on the other page, but my system is arbitrary. It's more realistic to group you with individuals your age.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/20/16 at 10:55 pm


Someone who graduated in 1990 had the 80s high school experience.
They were only there half of 1990 and 1990 itself had lots of 80s influence.


I agree, but I'm talking about the 1990s, not just 1990. It's the whole decade, not just one year. I think that cusps blend and blur (1990 into 1980s). It's almost impossible to define generations for a variety of reasons.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 09/21/16 at 10:56 am


I agree, but I'm talking about the 1990s, not just 1990. It's the whole decade, not just one year. I think that cusps blend and blur (1990 into 1980s). It's almost impossible to define generations for a variety of reasons.

So true.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 09/22/16 at 10:46 am

I've always agreed with the +/- 5 year "personal generation" theory. To me, it makes a lot more sense than the idea of having massive generations where people born 10-15 years apart are considered part of the same cohort despite having widely different experiences growing up. I mean, just look at this stupid new "Gen X vs. Millennial" season of Survivor where (if I remember correctly) you've got a 1981er on the same team as somebody born in the '60s and a 1983er on the same team as somebody born in the '90s, even though they're just two years apart! ::)

I think 15-20 year generations made much more sense back in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when cultural changes took place over a much longer period of time. But things just evolve way too rapidly for that nowadays. The fads and trends that a kid born in 1981 grew up with are different than the ones I grew up with, just like the fads and trends I grew up with are different from those born in 1994, even though we are all technically considered to be part of the same massive "Millennial generation".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/22/16 at 1:49 pm


I've always agreed with the +/- 5 year "personal generation" theory. To me, it makes a lot more sense than the idea of having massive generations where people born 10-15 years apart are considered part of the same cohort despite having widely different experiences growing up. I mean, just look at this stupid new "Gen X vs. Millennial" season of Survivor where (if I remember correctly) you've got a 1981er on the same team as somebody born in the '60s and a 1983er on the same team as somebody born in the '90s, even though they're just two years apart! ::)

I think 15-20 year generations made much more sense back in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when cultural changes took place over a much longer period of time. But things just evolve way too rapidly for that nowadays. The fads and trends that a kid born in 1981 grew up with are different than the ones I grew up with, just like the fads and trends I grew up with are different from those born in 1994, even though we are all technically considered to be part of the same massive "Millennial generation".


I don't know why we're still using them for the late 20th and 21st centuries. Every decade was extremely different between technology, TV shows, movies, and political issues they could understand. It's complicated to even define the generations towards modern media, because people could disagree with that.

Personal generations make a lot of sense, since you could tell people which things they experienced as kids, teens or adults. I can't relate that much towards mid-late 2000s babies, since their childhood was way different than mine. Especially when I didn't have a smartphone or tablet as a kid, unlike these children.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 09/22/16 at 8:44 pm


I've always agreed with the +/- 5 year "personal generation" theory. To me, it makes a lot more sense than the idea of having massive generations where people born 10-15 years apart are considered part of the same cohort despite having widely different experiences growing up. I mean, just look at this stupid new "Gen X vs. Millennial" season of Survivor where (if I remember correctly) you've got a 1981er on the same team as somebody born in the '60s and a 1983er on the same team as somebody born in the '90s, even though they're just two years apart! ::)

I think 15-20 year generations made much more sense back in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when cultural changes took place over a much longer period of time. But things just evolve way too rapidly for that nowadays. The fads and trends that a kid born in 1981 grew up with are different than the ones I grew up with, just like the fads and trends I grew up with are different from those born in 1994, even though we are all technically considered to be part of the same massive "Millennial generation".


Why would the 1981 born even want to be there, hanging out with people 15+ years older, I'd feel super old. Gen Xer? Hah! More like Gen Exer amirite?? #irrelevant

I'm gonna hang with the Gen Z crowd. And yeah, I agree with the "around your age range" thing.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/22/16 at 8:52 pm


I've always agreed with the +/- 5 year "personal generation" theory. To me, it makes a lot more sense than the idea of having massive generations where people born 10-15 years apart are considered part of the same cohort despite having widely different experiences growing up. I mean, just look at this stupid new "Gen X vs. Millennial" season of Survivor where (if I remember correctly) you've got a 1981er on the same team as somebody born in the '60s and a 1983er on the same team as somebody born in the '90s, even though they're just two years apart! ::)

I think 15-20 year generations made much more sense back in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when cultural changes took place over a much longer period of time. But things just evolve way too rapidly for that nowadays. The fads and trends that a kid born in 1981 grew up with are different than the ones I grew up with, just like the fads and trends I grew up with are different from those born in 1994, even though we are all technically considered to be part of the same massive "Millennial generation".


Thanks. You make a lot of sense. The same holds true for people who realize that the youngest Boomers and oldest X'ers really are in the same generation. They're the Live Aid generation. The youngest Boomers aren't a part of the Woodstock generation. The oldest X'ers aren't a part of the Lollapalooza generation. Still, folks are bound and determined to put them in separate generational groups. Never mind the fact that some of them graduated from high school in the same year!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 09/26/16 at 4:21 pm

Anyone notice the new Powerpuff Girls answer the Powerpuff Hotline with a smartphone instead of a corded phone? This generational shift!

OMG the professor uses a tablet instead of a computer!! What kind of crap scientist? What can you do on a tablet?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 09/26/16 at 4:31 pm

OMG the Pokédex on Pokémon looks like a smartphone now ahdhakjsnxnkskajfn!!! EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED!

https://www.upload.ee/image/1431925/Scream.gif

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/26/16 at 4:34 pm


Anyone notice the new Powerpuff Girls answer the Powerpuff Hotline with a smartphone instead of a corded phone? This generational shift!


I noticed ever since they had the reboot earlier. It seems obvious because I don't think any kid nowadays wouldn't even know what a landline is. If you asked any kid about it, they'll be confused as hell.


OMG the professor uses a tablet instead of a computer!! What kind of crap scientist? What can you do on a tablet?


Maybe he's one of those modern tech geeks who uses the new technology because of today. It basically sounds like that dumb iPhone 7 introduction speech, where Apple convinced everybody that the headphone jack is old news, despite the fact that everyone still uses it.


OMG the Pokédex on Pokémon looks like a smartphone now ahdhakjsnxnkskajfn!!! EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED!

https://www.upload.ee/image/1431925/Scream.gif


Now I feel old. I knew something would happen to anything thanks to the smartphone.

http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/5/59/XY_Pok%C3%A9dex.png/733px-XY_Pok%C3%A9dex.png

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 09/26/16 at 4:46 pm

You can't actually do anything productive on an iPad, though. It's just for movies and reading.

Also my Gen Z 1995 born brother crawled out of his basement hole and sat with the family for dinner, and I was texting while eating, and he clicks his tongue and says "Pfft... Millenials...". DRAGGED ME!!  :\'(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/26/16 at 4:51 pm


You can't actually do anything productive on an iPad, though. It's just for movies and reading.


This all the way. It's basically just an iMac, but only a few features are actually compatible towards the device.


Also my Gen Z 1995 born brother crawled out of his basement hole and sat with the family for dinner, and I was texting while eating, and he clicks his tongue and says "Pfft... Millenials...". DRAGGED ME!!  :\'(


Little did he know, his generation is more tech-savvy than Millennials. lol

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 09/26/16 at 8:37 pm

1995 is actually core Millennial. I see 1989-1995 as the core of the generation. 1996+ is late Millennial.
I see the generation beginning in 1983 because they were the first to turn 18 in the real new Millenium (2000 was still the 20th century).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 09/26/16 at 11:57 pm


1995 is actually core Millennial. I see 1989-1995 as the core of the generation. 1996+ is late Millennial.
I see the generation beginning in 1983 because they were the first to turn 18 in the real new Millenium (2000 was still the 20th century).


I totally disagree.... 1995 is a late millennial or early Z, long with 1996 born's. The idea of 1999-2004 born's being Gen Y needs to get out of your head!  ::)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 09/27/16 at 12:35 am

People born between 1995-2000 are Gen Y/Z cusps, in my opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/27/16 at 5:52 am


1995 is actually core Millennial. I see 1989-1995 as the core of the generation. 1996+ is late Millennial.
I see the generation beginning in 1983 because they were the first to turn 18 in the real new Millenium (2000 was still the 20th century).


That doesn't make a lot of sense. If Millennials started in the early 80s, then how is 1989-1995 the core? It's more like 1985-1990 to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 09/27/16 at 7:14 am


That doesn't make a lot of sense. If Millennials started in the early 80s, then how is 1989-1995 the core? It's more like 1985-1990 to me.


I see Millennials beginning in 1983 and ending sometime between 2001 and 2004.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 09/27/16 at 7:15 am


I totally disagree.... 1995 is a late millennial or early Z, long with 1996 born's. The idea of 1999-2004 born's being Gen Y needs to get out of your head!  ::)


1995 and 1996 borns remember the Bush administration too much to be Gen Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/27/16 at 1:26 pm


I see Millennials beginning in 1983 and ending sometime between 2001 and 2004.


If it did began in 1983 to you, then the core should've been somewhere between 1986-1993.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 09/27/16 at 2:42 pm

I was joking about the 1995 being Gen Z thing.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 09/27/16 at 2:51 pm

I would rather make sure 1999 is the last Gen Y year while 2000 is the first Gen Z year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 09/27/16 at 3:04 pm

1981 was a very cool year for the hard edged crowd. The young beat types were rowdy and loud everywhere!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/27/16 at 5:02 pm


I was joking about the 1995 being Gen Z thing.


Some people actually take it seriously, though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 09/27/16 at 7:23 pm


If it did began in 1983 to you, then the core should've been somewhere between 1986-1993.


How? In my definition it ends in 2001-2004 so 1986 is too early to be core. 1987-1988 are on the fence between early and core.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 09/27/16 at 7:57 pm

You guys are just going to accept the fact that "Millennials" don't exist and their definition is heavily muddled. :P

Nowadays, "Millennial" seems to mean "anyone younger than me" as I've quite literally seen people in their 20s calling teenagers and children millennials, i.e. "Millennials don't know what a VHS is", "Millennials are stupid 12 year olds", "Millennials don't know what a pay phone is", "Millennials grew up on PewDiePie and Minecraft", "Millennials don't know what it's like to use a real magazine and not the Internet to rub one out", etc. This is despite the fact that teens aren't millennials, they're Gen Z.

Weird huh? It's like if a black guy started calling white people the n-word.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 09/27/16 at 8:05 pm


You guys are just going to accept the fact that "Millennials" don't exist and their definition is heavily muddled. :P

Nowadays, "Millennial" seems to mean "anyone younger than me" as I've quite literally seen people in their 20s calling teenagers and children millennials, i.e. "Millennials don't know what a VHS is", "Millennials are stupid 12 year olds", "Millennials don't know what a pay phone is", "Millennials grew up on PewDiePie and Minecraft", "Millennials don't know what it's like to use a real magazine and not the Internet to rub one out", etc. This is despite the fact that teens aren't millennials, they're Gen Z.

Weird huh? It's like if a black guy started calling white people the n-word.


I don't get the comparison between Millennials and calling people the n-word (especially since 99% of people are using it wrong anyways), but alright.  ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 09/27/16 at 8:10 pm


You guys are just going to accept the fact that "Millennials" don't exist


THEN WHO WAS NAPKIN INDUSTRY?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 09/27/16 at 8:36 pm


I don't get the comparison between Millennials and calling people the n-word (especially since 99% of people are using it wrong anyways), but alright.  ???


He means many Millennials don't realize that they're Millennials when they complain about Millennials. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that was the purpose of his analogy.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 09/27/16 at 9:04 pm


He means many Millennials don't realize that they're Millennials when they complain about Millennials. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that was the purpose of his analogy.

Yeah that's what I meant

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Looney Toon on 09/27/16 at 9:57 pm


THEN WHO WAS NAPKIN INDUSTRY?


Gen X  8)

After Gen X we skip to Z. The generation from the 1980s-1990s don't exist at all. They were just made up by the government to confuse the general public.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 09/27/16 at 10:25 pm


I was joking about the 1995 being Gen Z thing.

It's hard to tell because some people actually do start Gen Z in 1995

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 09/27/16 at 10:36 pm


"Some" people? More like "most" people.

Though 2000 is the second most popular starting date.


Actually Gen Z isn't on most people's radar...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 09/27/16 at 10:38 pm

The NY Times had an article about them last year and the United Nations put out a message to them today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moller-/why-gen-z-should-care-abo_b_12212016.html

They're not on the radar as much as Millennials, but that's because they don't have as much buying power yet.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 09/28/16 at 10:14 am


1995 and 1996 borns remember the Bush administration too much to be Gen Z.


Uh, not from a teen or adult perspective. We were too young to understand politics while Bush was in office. Kids may remember George Bush's face but that doesn't mean they understood the economy or politics at the time. Doesn't count. Mid & late 90's babies are kids of the Obama era (2008-2016) because that's the first full time we could understand politics while a president was in office. Trump and Hillary will be most of our first election to vote, and first for others when their second term comes (if one of them do get reelected in 2020).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/28/16 at 10:17 am


1995 and 1996 borns remember the Bush administration too much to be Gen Z.


Even though they were mostly little kids during his presidency.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 09/28/16 at 10:22 am


Even though they were mostly little kids during his presidency.


Biologically yes, we were kids during Bush's presidency, but in reality we were NOT kids during the Bush era. We were basically babies (mentally/knowledge) during the Bush era. We have been real kids throughout this Obama era (2008-2016), because that's the first presidential term we have truly understood politics and our economy, and once he leaves office, this upcoming election between Trump/Hillary will be most of our first election, and the winner of that will be in the 2020 election.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 09/28/16 at 10:30 am


Biologically yes, we were kids during Bush's presidency, but in reality we were NOT kids during the Bush era. We were basically babies (mentally/knowledge) during the Bush era. We have been real kids throughout this Obama era (2008-2016), because that's the first presidential term we have truly understood politics and our economy, and once he leaves office, this upcoming election between Trump/Hillary will be most of our first election, and the winner of that will be in the 2020 election.


Frankly, I think that the Obama era was the first one in which I could what was going on through U.S. politics. Especially with the 2008 election when Obama won against McCain.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 10/03/16 at 2:00 pm


1995 is actually core Millennial. I see 1989-1995 as the core of the generation. 1996+ is late Millennial.
I see the generation beginning in 1983 because they were the first to turn 18 in the real new Millenium (2000 was still the 20th century).
Not even close! ;D ;D ;D

It's folks your age range who are the core of the generation. There are many sources stating that 1995+ are Plurals supported by surveys, stats presented from articles.


You guys are just going to accept the fact that "Millennials" don't exist and their definition is heavily muddled. :P

Nowadays, "Millennial" seems to mean "anyone younger than me" as I've quite literally seen people in their 20s calling teenagers and children millennials, i.e. "Millennials don't know what a VHS is", "Millennials are stupid 12 year olds", "Millennials don't know what a pay phone is", "Millennials grew up on PewDiePie and Minecraft", "Millennials don't know what it's like to use a real magazine and not the Internet to rub one out", etc. This is despite the fact that teens aren't millennials, they're Gen Z.

Weird huh? It's like if a black guy started calling white people the n-word.
That's because most folks have an ill conceived perception of who and what the Millennials are. When are the misinformed going to realize that Millennials are NOT Gen Z? The former are those over 20/21, but under 40 while the latter are those under 20. The term doesn't refer to those who were born around that time period, but those who graduated HS and the rest who were in school when we entered the new Millennium.


Biologically yes, we were kids during Bush's presidency, but in reality we were NOT kids during the Bush era. We were basically babies (mentally/knowledge) during the Bush era. We have been real kids throughout this Obama era (2008-2016), because that's the first presidential term we have truly understood politics and our economy, and once he leaves office, this upcoming election between Trump/Hillary will be most of our first election, and the winner of that will be in the 2020 election.
I wonder what does say for us whose 1st vote was in the 2012 election? We recall the 2008 one very well (despite not being able to vote) and understood what Bush did during his presidency (most of it). Hell, we were even adolescents during the 2004 election as well, so the aftermath pretty much had an impact on us as a whole. I don't know why, it does seem like being a few years older can have an effect on someone in a way.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 10/04/16 at 4:24 pm


I wonder what does say for us whose 1st vote was in the 2012 election? We recall the 2008 one very well (despite not being able to vote) and understood what Bush did during his presidency (most of it). Hell, we were even adolescents during the 2004 election as well, so the aftermath pretty much had an impact on us as a whole. I don't know why, it does seem like being a few years older can have an effect on someone in a way.

Yeah. I wonder if I had been born in October of 1994, how politically things would affect me?

Uh, not from a teen or adult perspective. We were too young to understand politics while Bush was in office. Kids may remember George Bush's face but that doesn't mean they understood the economy or politics at the time. Doesn't count. Mid & late 90's babies are kids of the Obama era (2008-2016) because that's the first full time we could understand politics while a president was in office. Trump and Hillary will be most of our first election to vote, and first for others when their second term comes (if one of them do get reelected in 2020).

What about early 90s babies?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 10/04/16 at 4:27 pm


I totally disagree.... 1995 is a late millennial, long with 1996 born's. The idea of 1999-2004 born's being Gen Y needs to get out of your head!  ::)

Yep. I kinda accept 1999 and 2000. But that's about it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 10/04/16 at 4:29 pm

I've just started to notice this. But what in the hell is the difference between the ending birth years of 4 and 5 in a generation? Jeez!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 10/04/16 at 4:33 pm

Err... that's how every generation works. They're arbitrary.

Someone born December 31, 1945 is not different from someone born January 1, 1946 in terms of upbringing. Yet one is a "Silent Generation", while the other is a "Baby boomer".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 10/04/16 at 4:34 pm


Err... that's how every generation works. They're arbitrary.

Someone born December 31, 1945 is not different from someone born January 1, 1946 in terms of upbringing. Yet one is a "Silent Generation", while the other is a "Baby boomer".

Funny thing is they're both in the same grade tho... ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 10/04/16 at 4:39 pm


1995 is actually core Millennial. 1996+ is late Millennial.


um.. no. Just no. i'm kinda late, just like a 96er is. Hell, even 93 and 94 born are kinda late as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 10/04/16 at 4:52 pm


Err... that's how every generation works. They're arbitrary.

Someone born December 31, 1945 is not different from someone born January 1, 1946 in terms of upbringing. Yet one is a "Silent Generation", while the other is a "Baby boomer".

Funny thing is they're both in the same grade tho... ;D ;D ;D

Yep, class of '64 (in all likelihood). Yet they are consecutive days! :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/04/16 at 5:04 pm


Err... that's how every generation works. They're arbitrary.

Someone born December 31, 1945 is not different from someone born January 1, 1946 in terms of upbringing. Yet one is a "Silent Generation", while the other is a "Baby boomer".


Which is why people should use personal generations more.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 10/04/16 at 5:20 pm


Yep. I kinda accept 1999 and 2000. But that's about it.


I agree, although people born in 1999 and 2000 are more likely to be Gen Y/Z cusps. I wouldn't really consider them to be Early Gen Z though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/04/16 at 5:23 pm


I totally disagree.... 1995 is a late millennial or early Z, long with 1996 born's. The idea of 1999-2004 born's being Gen Y needs to get out of your head!  ::)


I don't think 1999-2000 babies should share the same generation with 2004 babies, though. They were 4-5 years old when they were born.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 1999 Baby, 2000s Kid on 10/04/16 at 5:45 pm

I honestly don't why generations exist, at least with these terms, can someone explain to me why they are a thing? I think most people would probably relate most to people born within the four years before their birth, and within the three years after their birth. If you're wondering why I added an extra year on people older than you it's because they can remember all of what went on in your early childhood whilst people born four years after can't.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/04/16 at 6:07 pm


I honestly don't why generations exist, at least with these terms, can someone explain to me why they are a thing? I think most people would probably relate most to people born within the four years before their birth, and within the three years after their birth. If you're wondering why I added an extra year on people older than you it's because they can remember all of what went on in your early childhood whilst people born four years after can't.


To be fair, generations shouldn't really count for anyone at all. They're just useless labels that nobody gives a crap. I mean, I'll rather identify myself as a 2000s kid because that's when my childhood took place. Being a "Y/Z cusp" doesn't really help since barely anybody gives a crap about belonging to Generation Y or Z. Not even 90s kids.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 10/04/16 at 6:26 pm


Yeah. I wonder if I had been born in October of 1994, how politically things would affect me?
Well the 2004 election would have had more of an effect on you since you would have been 10 by that year and your vote would have mattered in the 2012 one. As for 2008, it either could have been different or the same depending if your school district had a December cutoff instead of July which would have made you part of the 2012 class, and not the 2013 one.


I've just started to notice this. But what in the hell is the difference between the ending birth years of 4 and 5 in a generation? Jeez!
Not much really; however, say if a person was born in Feb. 1994 and another was born in Nov. 1995? Then, there would not only be a small gap in grad classes, but even remembering certain events as well.


um.. no. Just no. i'm kinda late, just like a 96er is. Hell, even 93 and 94 born are kinda late as well.
More like the younger portion. The early/core/late system is getting played out too much.


Err... that's how every generation works. They're arbitrary.

Someone born December 31, 1945 is not different from someone born January 1, 1946 in terms of upbringing. Yet one is a "Silent Generation", while the other is a "Baby boomer".
They are arbitrary in dates, but not when it comes to the clues within each cohort.


I honestly don't why generations exist, at least with these terms, can someone explain to me why they are a thing? I think most people would probably relate most to people born within the four years before their birth, and within the three years after their birth. If you're wondering why I added an extra year on people older than you it's because they can remember all of what went on in your early childhood whilst people born four years after can't.
I say it truly has to do with the age you are/were when certain events took place. I mean it's not like the Great recession is going have a significance on someone when he or she was 4 years old or when that same person is 55 since he/she have already experienced them multiple times. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/04/16 at 7:00 pm


I say it truly has to do with the age you are/were when certain events took place. I mean it's not like the Great recession is going have a significance on someone when he or she was 4 years old or when that same person is 55 since he/she have already experienced them multiple times.


I think the Great Recession affected people who either worked in jobs that had their companies screwed by the economy, or those who graduated high school or college at the time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 10/04/16 at 9:21 pm


Funny thing is they're both in the same grade tho... ;D ;D ;D

But even if you went by grade, it's still arbitrary.

I've seen you suggest that those born up to August 31, 1996 (up to class of 2014) are Gen Y, while those born September 1, 1996 onward (class of 2015 onward) are Gen Z, and I'm sorry, but that's also arbitrary af. ;D Tell a person born Aug 31, 1996 they're a different generation from his brother born one day later, and he'll laugh at you.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 10/04/16 at 9:50 pm


I don't think 1999-2000 babies should share the same generation with 2004 babies, though. They were 4-5 years old when they were born.


It's even more ridiculous when you group people with other people who were born twelve to sixteen years before or after they were born. You shouldn't share an arbitrary generation with people who could be your parents or your children. That's why a sliding scale, based on your age, makes more sense. The bottom line is that you share a REAL generation with your REAL age group.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 10/04/16 at 11:33 pm


But even if you went by grade, it's still arbitrary.

I've seen you suggest that those born up to August 31, 1996 (up to class of 2014) are Gen Y, while those born September 1, 1996 onward (class of 2015 onward) are Gen Z, and I'm sorry, but that's also arbitrary af. ;D Tell a person born Aug 31, 1996 they're a different generation from his brother born one day later, and he'll laugh at you.

Well, some people born in September or October of a particular calendar year do not necessarily graduate 19 calendar years later; they might graduate 18 years later instead. Case in point, many members of my graduating class, 1998, were born between September 1st and December 1st of 1980; heck, there were even a few early-1981-born people who graduated with me (they might have been on a "fast track" in early years of school).

On the other hand, some people do get held back early (or are subjected to some other quirk) and will graduate during the calendar year that they turn 19; case in point, I did know a few people born during the first half of 1980 who were one grade behind me and hence graduated in 1999. In addition, there were several 1979-born people in my graduating class, not just with birthdays in the second half of the year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 10/04/16 at 11:56 pm


I've seen you suggest that those born up to August 31, 1996 (up to class of 2014) are Gen Y, while those born September 1, 1996 onward (class of 2015 onward) are Gen Z .

I have never suggested that. 2015 class did not feel THAT different.
Btw, here in Missouri, it was mostly those born from August 1995 to July 1996 was the class of 2014. Since that's the cutoff here.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 10/05/16 at 3:18 am


It's even more ridiculous when you group people with other people who were born twelve to sixteen years before or after they were born. You shouldn't share an arbitrary generation with people who could be your parents or your children. That's why a sliding scale, based on your age, makes more sense. The bottom line is that you share a REAL generation with your REAL age group.


I agree. Personally, I don't consider myself to be apart of the same generation as people born in the 80s or the 2010s. The youngest people born in the 80s are 10 years older than me and I am 11 years older than the oldest people born in the 2010s. I consider people born between 1997-2001 to be in my 'age group', although I would probably be able to relate with people born in 1996 and possibly even 2002 as well. Although, to be completely honest, people born in 2000 and 2001 are the only 2000's babies who I can truly relate with. Generations cause too much conflict, in my opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 10/05/16 at 3:49 pm


I've just started to notice this. But what in the hell is the difference between the ending birth years of 4 and 5 in a generation? Jeez!

In general, not just with the 90s, it seems people tend to use the year ending in -5 as the "cutoff point" or "changing point" for everything!

For example, on Twitter and YouTube, I've read comments along the lines of:
"Most amazingly accurate prediction of Back to the Future: kids born after 1985 all turned out to be assholes."
"If you were born before 1985 and you don't know how to use a landline phone, we can't be friends."
"Earlier Millennials mostly aren't sensitive SJWs, but later Millennials tend to be... 95 and up."

I'm guessing it's because the year that ends in -5 is a nice, clean, rounded up (or rounded down) number. Even if the year that ends in -4 or -6 or -7 or -3 brought in more significant changes, that doesn't matter to the simple-minded, quick-and-easy public.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/05/16 at 4:23 pm


In general, not just with the 90s, it seems people tend to use the year ending in -5 as the "cutoff point" or "changing point" for everything!

For example, on Twitter and YouTube, I've read comments along the lines of:
"Most amazingly accurate prediction of Back to the Future: kids born after 1985 all turned out to be assholes."
"If you were born before 1985 and you don't know how to use a landline phone, we can't be friends."
"Earlier Millennials mostly aren't sensitive SJWs, but later Millennials tend to be... 95 and up."

I'm guessing it's because the year that ends in -5 is a nice, clean, rounded up (or rounded down) number. Even if the year that ends in -4 or -6 or -7 or -3 brought in more significant changes, that doesn't matter to the simple-minded, quick-and-easy public.


I'm pretty sure those people never met a post-1985 baby before.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Knew Wave on 10/05/16 at 10:42 pm


I agree. Personally, I don't consider myself to be apart of the same generation as people born in the 80s or the 2010s. The youngest people born in the 80s are 10 years older than me and I am 11 years older than the oldest people born in the 2010s. I consider people born between 1997-2001 to be in my 'age group', although I would probably be able to relate with people born in 1996 and possibly even 2002 as well. Although, to be completely honest, people born in 2000 and 2001 are the only 2000's babies who I can truly relate with. Generations cause too much conflict, in my opinion.


That last sentence is so true! I view people as people, not ages or generations. I'll be their friend if they're eighteen. I'll be their friend if they're eighty.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 10/05/16 at 10:43 pm


That last sentence is so true! I view people as people, not ages or generations. I'll be their friend if they're eighteen. I'll be their friend if they're eighty.

Agreed here; no one should discriminate another person just because of age; that's just wrong. :-\\

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 10/16/16 at 3:41 am

I was reading through this thread not too long ago and looking at the various generational boundaries which have been suggested by members. One thing that struck me is that most people (not just on inthe00s, but in general) seem to be able to agree that most people born in the 2000's are either Early Gen Z or core Gen Z. However, opinion is pretty much split with people born in 2000. I'm curious to know, what generation do you consider someone born in 2000 as?

Personally, I have always considered people born in 2000 as being the last group of people who could be considered a "Y/Z" cusp. Some people unfairly view them as having grown up with a smartphone and social media at the age of 2 and in most cases, they are often stereotyped as being "tech addicts". As someone who has classes with people born in 2000 and has a cousin and two close friends who were also born in the same year, I can confirm that this definitely isn't the case. People born in 2000 did not have a smartphone at the age of 4 or went on social media when they were only 6 or 7 years old. Just like 90s babies, they also played outside when they were kids and they can remember a world before Facebook and YouTube. They were also the first 2000s babies who went to school with 90s babies and people born early in the year would be in the same class with Late 1999 babies. Personally, I wouldn't consider them to be "Late Gen Y"; they would be Gen Y/Z cusps, just like Late 90s babies. Generally speaking, I view people born in 2000 as being "Late 90s" babies, just under another name. Most of them were even in the womb during 1999 as well.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts/opinions in regards to people born in 2000 and what generation you would view them as.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 10/16/16 at 8:50 am


I agree. Personally, I don't consider myself to be apart of the same generation as people born in the 80s or the 2010s. The youngest people born in the 80s are 10 years older than me and I am 11 years older than the oldest people born in the 2010s. I consider people born between 1997-2001 to be in my 'age group', although I would probably be able to relate with people born in 1996 and possibly even 2002 as well. Although, to be completely honest, people born in 2000 and 2001 are the only 2000's babies who I can truly relate with. Generations cause too much conflict, in my opinion.


Generations shouldn't be with anyone who were born in the mid-late 20th century. Every modern decade changes immediately, and it makes the person look old when they recall a earlier decade.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/06/17 at 5:35 pm

Radio Canada made a quiz about generations, and it guesses your age based on your responses. Unfortunately, it's only in French!

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/ideolab/

It was almost spot on in guessing my age. It guessed that I was 25 (I'm 24).  :o

My "political age" is 33, my "technological age" is 38 and my "social age" is 38 as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 06/06/17 at 6:27 pm


Radio Canada made a quiz about generations, and it guesses your age based on your responses. Unfortunately, it's only in French!

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/ideolab/

It was almost spot on in guessing my age. It guessed that I was 25 (I'm 24).  :o

My "political age" is 33, my "technological age" is 38 and my "social age" is 38 as well.


Did you use a translating tool to answer those questions? I don't understand anything that it is saying at all (because of the language).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/06/17 at 7:34 pm

It defines the generations as

Silent Generation - Great Depression to the end of the Second World War (1929 to 1945)
Baby Boomer - 52 to 71 years old (1946 to 1964)
Generation X - 37 to 52 years old (1965 to 1980)
Millennial - 22 to 36 years old (1980 to 1995)
Generation Z - 17 to 21 years old (1996 to 2000)

http://i.imgur.com/YuY8d0n.png

The first theme it uses is social issues (enjeux sociaux), placing how progressive or conservative you are on a spectrum. No surprises here, younger generations are more progressive than older generations.

http://i.imgur.com/TVlULSw.png

The second theme is the Internet, and how you view the impact of the Internet on your social life and attachment to your community. Unsurprisingly, older generations take a more negative view of the impacts of the Internet on social and community life, while younger generations are more moderate.

http://i.imgur.com/ypVXga5.png

The third theme is materialism, and how much you tie material things and money to happiness and life satisfaction. The oldest generations are the least materialist, peaking with Generation X as the most materialist, and the materialist sentiment tapering off with Millennials/Generation Z (though they are still more materialist than Boomers/Silents). As for me... I need money.

http://i.imgur.com/4F1tdaV.png

The fourth theme was optimism. Hmm, Canadians are a pessimistic (realist!) bunch across the board, but generally the younger you are, the more pessimist you are. Don't lose hope!

http://i.imgur.com/w5LpgLB.png

The fourth theme was religion, or rather, your view on religion's role in society. Boomers most strongly believe in secularism, while the younger generations are more religiously tolerant. The Silent Generation is somewhere in the middle.

Historical context: Before the 1960s, the Catholic Church controlled every aspect of public and private life. All the schools, hospitals, practically every aspect of government and private life was dictated by the Church. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Boomers rebelled against the Church and secularized most aspects of government and public life, and significantly curtailed the influence of the Church. With the arrival of Islam, Sikhism and the resurgence of Orthodox Judaism, a lot of old debates have flared up again about the role of religion in government and public life.

http://i.imgur.com/5FVB05M.png

The final theme is spirituality. There are no surprises here. The older generations are more spiritual while the younger generations are more skeptical. As for me, y'all know where I stand ;D

-----------

Then there are 11 additional themes. I won't bother posting pictures of it. People were asked the importance they place on X aspect of their life, on a scale from 1 to 10.

Career - the younger you are, the greater the importance you place on your career.

Love life - Roughly, Millennials place the greatest importance on love life, and this declines as you get older. However, Generation Z places the least importance on  love life, perhaps because they're still young.

Friendship - Millennials/Gen Z and Silents placed the greatest importance on friendship in roughly equal amounts. Gen X/Boomers placed a slightly less importance on friendship (but not by a noticeable amount).

Family - the older you are, the greater the importance you put on family.

Money - so sexy! Boomers/Gen X love money, as do I. Silents and Millennials are less enthusiastic, and Gen Z recognizes that money is a tool utilized by the bourgeoisie to exploit the labour of the proletariat and hold onto power.

Power - no one's got, or wants, the power. Except the Silents (but not that badly).

Knowledge - the older generations place a higher importance on knowledge. This is exactly how idiocracy happens! Just kidding, the difference between the generations was negligible despite the small trend.

Health - people who are dying older place a stronger importance on health.

Fame - who wants to live the life of the rich and famous? No one. Except Silents and Gen Z, but not that badly.

Altruism - Older generations care only about themselves, younger generations care about others! <3

Faith - LOL I got a 0 on this one. Sans surpris, older generations place a greater importance on faith while younger generations don't.

----------

The last section is activities, tabulating how much of each generation participates in certain activities at least once a week.

http://i.imgur.com/J5qj27M.png

Watch a film or TV show through streaming? - Millennials are most likely, followed by Gen Z, and that's less common among older generations.

http://i.imgur.com/4lq76ey.png

Ride a bicycle - Gen Z are the biggest riding enthusiasts, followed by Gen X, then Millennials, followed by Boomers and finally Silents.

http://i.imgur.com/8jVfF6m.png

Drink until you're drunk - Millennials are most likely to get smashed every week, followed by Gen Z (presumably because 17 and some 18 year olds can't drink), then declines as you get older.

http://i.imgur.com/UxNjxDr.png

Play video games - the younger you are, the more likely you are to be a hardcore gamer!

http://i.imgur.com/Twto0yo.png

Downloading multimedia content without paying - Why are you looking at me? Millennials are the most likely to be evading the law, followed by Gen Z. Silents are more likely to realize the farce that is intellectual property than are Gen X or Boomers.

It was a very interesting quiz. I wish it were in English so I could share it. Maybe you guys can use this as motivation to learn the language!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/06/17 at 7:48 pm


Did you use a translating tool to answer those questions? I don't understand anything that it is saying at all (because of the language).


Unfortunately I couldn't find an English version of the quiz. I can put up a translation for you (if you want), it would take a while though.  :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 06/06/17 at 9:06 pm


Unfortunately I couldn't find an English version of the quiz. I can put up a translation for you (if you want), it would take a while though.  :-X


It's fine then. Thanks anyway.  :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/08/17 at 4:44 pm


Unfortunately, I couldn't find an English version of the quiz. I can put up a translation for you (if you want), it would take a while though.  :-X



It's fine then. Thanks anyway.  :)
I just did the quiz, and I received the millennial tag. You can still do it with English translation; however, it's recommended to use a PC and not your phone.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 06/15/17 at 7:21 am

It should be noted that, while we can quibble about specific years, more and more normies are slowly becoming redpilled on the concept of a "Generation Z". More and more people are realizing "Millennials" are not teenagers right now, as Gen Z develops more of a specific identity.

There was the Buzzfeed video from a few months ago with Gen Z in it that has been viewed by 4 million people, and there's more articles being written about Gen Z, not to mention Trump supporters spamming on the Internet how Gen Z is supposedly more conservative.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ZeldaFan20 on 06/15/17 at 9:48 am

My results:

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/ideolab/resultats/482e69d0-51d8-11e7-90ce-0242ac110002

Apparently my actual age is 29, my political age is 29, age of technology is 37, and my social age is 13 ;D.

I'm 21 :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 06/15/17 at 10:12 am

Holy smokes. That thing put my age at 46. My political age was 51, my technological age was 38 and my social age was 54.

See, I told you guys late '80s babies are Gen X.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 06/15/17 at 3:46 pm


It should be noted that, while we can quibble about specific years, more and more normies are slowly becoming redpilled on the concept of a "Generation Z". More and more people are realizing "Millennials" are not teenagers right now, as Gen Z develops more of a specific identity.

There was the Buzzfeed video from a few months ago with Gen Z in it that has been viewed by 4 million people, and there's more articles being written about Gen Z, not to mention Trump supporters spamming on the Internet how Gen Z is supposedly more conservative.


Yeah I mean the oldest "millennials" being around mid 30s are actually damn near (early) middle aged and many are actually the parents of teens. Even at 30 myself I'm old enough to be the father of the youngest teens.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 06/15/17 at 4:50 pm


Yeah I mean the oldest "millennials" being around mid 30s are actually damn near (early) middle aged and many are actually the parents of teens. Even at 30 myself I'm old enough to be the father of the youngest teens.

I know, but as I said before, normies are slowly being "redpilled" on Gen Z being current teens, not Millennials.

Heck, most of the comments here are yelling at the author for getting it wrong.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/michellerennex/goals-tbqfh

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 06/15/17 at 5:21 pm

Sorry to get back into decadeology, but.

I now think of Millennials as being born from 1982 to 1997, partially due to Buzzfeed's recent video. First, because people born in 1982 were the class of 2000, of course. And second, scientists go by the 3-12 model for childhood; thus, people born in 1997 would be the absolute youngest to have some faint memories of the millennium turn and the year 2000. This works better than the 9/11 cutoff because Y2K was a globally relevant event, while 9/11 some would argue was more of a U.S.-centric event. Social generations are typically 15-20 years, and 1997-1982 = 15, so the definition works out nicely.

Gen Z picks up in 1998 of course, and I'd say the ending date is around 2013. The reason being because kids born 2014 and later - going by the "3-12" model - would not remember a world before 2016. 2016 has been one of the most tumultuous, generation-defining years in recent memory, not just on a U.S. scale but a global one. Again, this range adds up to a nice and tidy 15-year social generation.

If the (((media))) stuck to definitions similar to these, I think people would probably be less confused and/or pissed about who Millennials truly are.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 06/15/17 at 5:26 pm


Sorry to get back into decadeology, but.

I now think of Millennials as being born from 1982 to 1997, partially due to Buzzfeed's recent video. First, because people born in 1982 were the class of 2000, of course. And second, scientists go by the 3-12 model for childhood; thus, people born in 1997 would be the absolute youngest to have some faint memories of the millennium turn and the year 2000. This works better than the 9/11 cutoff because Y2K was a globally relevant event, while 9/11 some would argue was more of a U.S.-centric event. Social generations are typically 15-20 years, and 1997-1982 = 15, so the definition works out nicely.

Gen Z picks up in 1998 of course, and I'd say the ending date is around 2013. The reason being because kids born 2014 and later - going by the "3-12" model - would not remember a world before 2016. 2016 has been one of the most tumultuous, generation-defining years in recent memory, not just on a U.S. scale but a global one.


Yeah that's pretty accurate in a lot of ways. In a lot of ways I think of millennials as the last generation born in the 20th century, first to reach adulthood in the 21st century, last to remember something from the 20th century. I mean I don't think there's a huge difference between people born just a few years apart and somebody born in 1980 or 2000 is still kinda on the borderline but the basic idea of what the generation is about lines up with my thoughts.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/15/17 at 5:32 pm


I just did the quiz, and I received the millennial tag. You can still do it with English translation; however, it's recommended to use a PC and not your phone.


Oh, sweet! Maybe I can make a separate thread about it now :D


My results:

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/ideolab/resultats/482e69d0-51d8-11e7-90ce-0242ac110002

Apparently my actual age is 29, my political age is 29, age of technology is 37, and my social age is 13 ;D.

I'm 21 :-X


I LOL'd at "social age is 13". Rekt. ;D At least you're older than me overall! :D

Here are my full results - https://ici.radio-canada.ca/ideolab/resultats/6a356ba6-4ae3-11e7-bcfa-0242ac110002/


Holy smokes. That thing put my age at 46. My political age was 51, my technological age was 38 and my social age was 54.

See, I told you guys late '80s babies are Gen X.


You're an old, old man, mach!ne_he@d. What was life like before colour television?  :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/15/17 at 7:44 pm


It should be noted that, while we can quibble about specific years, more and more normies are slowly becoming red pilled on the concept of a "Generation Z". More and more people are realizing "Millennials" are not teenagers right now, as Gen Z develops more of a specific identity.

There was the Buzzfeed video from a few months ago with Gen Z in it that has been viewed by 4 million people, and there are more articles being written about Gen Z, not to mention Trump supporters spamming on the Internet how Gen Z is supposedly more conservative.
That's good because even the youngest millennials have been removed from high school for a few years now, and they are even traditionally close to graduating college.

Oh, and as for Gen Z is supposedly more conservative, I don't think that's true because not only was it a UK study, it was out of thousands which are not even close compared to millions.


Sorry to get back into decadeology, but.

I now think of Millennials as being born from 1982 to 1997, partially due to Buzzfeed's recent video. First, because people born in 1982 were the class of 2000, of course. And second, scientists go by the 3-12 model for childhood; thus, people born in 1997 would be the absolute youngest to have some faint memories of the millennium turn and the year 2000. This works better than the 9/11 cutoff because Y2K was a globally relevant event, while 9/11 some would argue was more of a U.S.-centric event. Social generations are typically 15-20 years, and 1997-1982 = 15, so the definition works out nicely.

Gen Z picks up in 1998 of course, and I'd say the ending date is around 2013. The reason being that kids born 2014 and later - going by the "3-12" model - would not remember the world before 2016. 2016 has been one of the most tumultuous, generation-defining years in recent memory, not just on a U.S. scale but a global one. Again, this range adds up to a nice and tidy 15-year social generation.

If the (((media))) stuck to definitions similar to these, I think people would probably be less confused and/or pissed about who Millennials truly are.
Yeah, that does seem to be a good span for Millennials; however, I don't know if that will stick since I still see 1995/96 as the start, and considering it looks uneven. Plus, there were more events that affected millennials aside from Y2K.


Oh, sweet! Maybe I can make a separate thread about it now :D
You should. It would be interesting.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 06/15/17 at 8:34 pm

Anyone notice how the Gen Y moniker has sort of disappeared from public consciousness, but the Gen Z moniker is fresh and relevant in peoples' minds? On wikipedia, it goes Gen X > Millennials > Gen Z, which is kind of weird.

It reminds me of how the character Rockman was renamed "Megaman" in the West, yet Megaman's sister was still named Roll, basically reducing the intended pun of "Rock n Roll" to nonexistence and leaving a strange gap. A nerdy example, but I couldn't think of a better one.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 06/15/17 at 9:24 pm


Yeah that's pretty accurate in a lot of ways. In a lot of ways I think of millennials as the last generation born in the 20th century, first to reach adulthood in the 21st century, last to remember something from the 20th century. I mean I don't think there's a huge difference between people born just a few years apart and somebody born in 1980 or 2000 is still kinda on the borderline but the basic idea of what the generation is about lines up with my thoughts.


Millennials last until 2004.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 06/15/17 at 9:25 pm


Millennials last until 2004.


No way. 2004 is too late period. 1999/2000 max.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nintieskid999 on 06/15/17 at 9:36 pm


No way. 2004 is too late period. 1999/2000 max.


They are basically the last to have legitimate memories before the 2008 crash

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 06/15/17 at 9:43 pm


They are basically the last to have legitimate memories before the 2008 crash


They were four years old, no. Four year olds don't think or care about the economy. Are they still "early" gen z?...yeah but no they are still definitely another generation. I will NEVER till the day I die consider someone born in 2004 the same generation as me. Nothing in the '00s really affected them. Nobody born in the 21st century is really part of the "millennial" generation or it simply loses it's meaning.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 06/15/17 at 10:52 pm

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/ideolab/resultats/5ec399b8-5246-11e7-a014-0242ac110002

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/15/17 at 10:58 pm


https://ici.radio-canada.ca/ideolab/resultats/5ec399b8-5246-11e7-a014-0242ac110002


Interesting results!

One thing I've noticed is that all of you are much more optimist than the average Canadian. I wonder what questions went into calculating that. ;D

What translation site did you guys use? Google Translate is giving me a blank page.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/15/17 at 11:24 pm


What translation site did you guys use? Google Translate is giving me a blank page.
That is what I used for the translation. I don't why it's giving you a blank page.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 06/16/17 at 6:09 am


I know, but as I said before, normies are slowly being "redpilled" on Gen Z being current teens, not Millennials.

Heck, most of the comments here are yelling at the author for getting it wrong.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/michellerennex/goals-tbqfh


I'm a purple pilled normie.

Not really a blue pilled guy, but I'm not too red pilled of one either. But it really depends on location though. I live in New Jersey where the state basically "gave" free electoral votes to Hillary. Not many people in New Jersey are conservative, let alone alt-right.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 06/16/17 at 6:42 am

Also note, please don't talk about cutting off generations. It's just going to stir up a lot of controversy and will be treated like a Theapricity "who is whiter" thread.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: aja675 on 06/16/17 at 8:53 am


Also note, please don't talk about cutting off generations. It's just going to stir up a lot of controversy and will be treated like a Theapricity "who is whiter" thread.
S***, you're there too?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/16/17 at 11:03 am

From redpills to (((media))) to who is whiter. This thread is heading in the wrong direction. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 06/16/17 at 12:56 pm


You're an old, old man, mach!ne_he@d. What was life like before colour television?  :-X


That I don't know. But, I can tell you what it was like being a kid without a computer or cable.

You '90s babies just don't understand what it was like growing up during the olden days of 1992.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/16/17 at 1:43 pm


That I don't know. But, I can tell you what it was like being a kid without a computer or cable.
Same here! ;) Those things were not as common as most people believe.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 06/16/17 at 2:14 pm


S***, you're there too?


I was on it for like, probably a week or two, and then I left. I never made threads like that, but the threads I was talking about, like the annoying "who is whiter - Saami or Greeks" type of threads on Theapricity, are really similar to the threads about cutting off Millennials at a certain year on sites like Personality Cafe and YouTube.

This is why I left Personality Cafe. It was getting to the point where people kept bickering each other about cutoff dates, and there was this guy that I encountered on the forums that was very annoying. I thought that it was slowly becoming like another Theapricity.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/16/17 at 2:21 pm

This is why I left Personality Cafe. It was getting to the point where people kept bickering each other about cutoff dates, and there was this guy that I encountered on the forums that was very annoying.
Wait you were on there too? What was your username on there? (you can send me a message in private)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 06/16/17 at 2:25 pm


Wait you were on there too? What was your username on there? (you can send me a message in private)


My name on Personality Cafe was "geisterhund".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/16/17 at 2:27 pm


My name on Personality Cafe was "geisterhund".
Oh sh!t! I know who you are. I actually first encountered you on there before you signed up here. I think I know you who you're talking about that was annoying on that site. Was it someone with a sly icon?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 06/16/17 at 2:31 pm


Oh sh!t! I know who you are. I actually first encountered you on there before you signed up here. I think I know you who you're talking about that was annoying on that site. Was it someone with a sly icon?


No. It was that guy from Brunei named "andrewyu2005".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/16/17 at 2:36 pm


No. It was that guy from Brunei named "andrewyu2005".
Oh, I know that person. Yeah, I agree he is definitely annoying. And for some reason, he'll bump threads out of nowhere.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 06/16/17 at 2:48 pm


That I don't know. But, I can tell you what it was like being a kid without a computer or cable.

You '90s babies just don't understand what it was like growing up during the olden days of 1992.


I was just joking.  ;D

I didn't know life before cable, but I do know life after cable.  8)


No. It was that guy from Brunei named "andrewyu2005".


LOL wow even I remember him and I haven't been on that forum in a while. He was desperate for validation from people older than him. That is not healthy behaviour. I feel bad for him.  :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 06/16/17 at 2:48 pm


Oh, I know that person. Yeah, I agree he is definitely annoying. And for some reason, he'll bump threads out of nowhere.


A lot of what he says also seems to sound very incoherent, and he often regurgitates everything he says.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 06/16/17 at 2:51 pm


A lot of what he says also seems to sound very incoherent, and he often regurgitates everything he says.
Yeah, and the fact he refuses to be Generation Z although the cutoffs here wouldn't even apply to him since he's from Brunei. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 06/16/17 at 6:47 pm


My name on Personality Cafe was "geisterhund".


I didn't know you were "geisterhund" on Personality Cafe! That's really good to hear, because it was a shame when you decided to stop posting on Personality Cafe.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 06/16/17 at 6:57 pm


This is why I left Personality Cafe. It was getting to the point where people kept bickering each other about cutoff dates, and there was this guy that I encountered on the forums that was very annoying. I thought that it was slowly becoming like another Theapricity.


Now the generation sub-forum is dominated by people who don't know anything about generations. A lot of the recent threads on the site have very little to do with generation boundaries. "SlyCooper97" pretty much controls the topics of discussion now. "Lennox97" doesn't post there anymore and he hasn't for a long time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Rainbowz on 12/05/17 at 9:49 pm


Now the generation sub-forum is dominated by people who don't know anything about generations. A lot of the recent threads on the site have very little to do with generation boundaries. "SlyCooper97" pretty much controls the topics of discussion now. "Lennox97" doesn't post there anymore and he hasn't for a long time.

I know this post is six months old, but Lennox97 was posting on Personality Cafe in October this year I think. He even responded to my thread.
http://personalitycafe.com/generation-z-forum/1167154-do-you-think-2010-dated-yet.html#post38952930

And just out of curiosity, how come you don't think SlyCooper97 (or should I call him the biology teacher ;D) knows anything about generations?

Also, I wish I joined PerC earlier tbh

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: HazelBlue99 on 12/05/17 at 10:45 pm


I know this post is six months old, but Lennox97 was posting on Personality Cafe in October this year I think. He even responded to my thread.
http://personalitycafe.com/generation-z-forum/1167154-do-you-think-2010-dated-yet.html#post38952930

And just out of curiosity, how come you don't think SlyCooper97 (or should I call him the biology teacher ;D) knows anything about generations?

Also, I wish I joined PerC earlier tbh


I wasn't referring to SlyCooper97 when I mentioned that. What I meant, was that SlyCooper97 was the most active user on the threads at the time and that most of the other people who posted in them didn't know too much about generations.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: unicornic on 12/06/17 at 10:06 am


I wasn't referring to SlyCooper97 when I mentioned that. What I meant, was that SlyCooper97 was the most active user on the threads at the time and that most of the other people who posted in them didn't know too much about generations.

Omg, I hate that guy. He’s so ageist and disrespectful. He called 2000s borns brats because we had different viewpoints from him of what ages core childhood was, and got mad because we didn’t come up with it with a “biological basis”  ::)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 12/06/17 at 10:58 pm


Omg, I hate that guy. He’s so ageist and disrespectful. He called 2000s borns brats because we had different viewpoints from him of what ages core childhood was, and got mad because we didn’t come up with it with a “biological basis”  ::)


However, one thing that I do like about him is that he is against the concept of generations (he wanted a thread about a guy born in 1998 wondering if he was Y or Z to be closed).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Rainbowz on 12/07/17 at 10:16 am


Omg, I hate that guy. He’s so ageist and disrespectful. He called 2000s borns brats because we had different viewpoints from him of what ages core childhood was, and got mad because we didn’t come up with it with a “biological basis”  ::)

Hate is a very strong word Elizabeth ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: unicornic on 12/07/17 at 3:31 pm


However, one thing that I do like about him is that he is against the concept of generations (he wanted a thread about a guy born in 1998 wondering if he was Y or Z to be closed).

There's nothing I like about him. He's rude, disrespectful, ageist, and gets mad for such silly reasons.
Hate is a very strong word Elizabeth ;)

I know, I just 'dislike' people who are rude and resort to insulting and ageism when those younger than them have different viewpoints.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Rainbowz on 12/09/17 at 1:50 pm


I know, I just 'dislike' people who are rude and resort to insulting and ageism when those younger than them have different viewpoints.
What generation do you consider yourself?

I was born in 2002 and I'm in the C/O 2020 so I would be an early generation Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Tyrannosaurus Rex on 12/09/17 at 2:49 pm

Let's not talk about generations anymore please.

The topic is just pure idiocy and will cause a lot of controversy.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: unicornic on 12/09/17 at 3:20 pm


What generation do you consider yourself?

I was born in 2002 and I'm in the C/O 2020 so I would be an early generation Z.

Yeah, I was born December 2001 so I’d be apart of your class. We are unquestionably Early Z for sure. Core Z would begin with 2005 borns imo

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 12/09/17 at 3:26 pm


Let's not talk about generations anymore please.

The topic is just pure idiocy and will cause a lot of controversy.


As long as people keep it in this thread I don't mind. It's only a problem when those topics flooded the boards.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Rainbowz on 12/09/17 at 3:32 pm


Yeah, I was born December 2001 so I’d be apart of your class. We are unquestionably Early Z for sure. Core Z would begin with 2005 borns imo

I agree with this. It makes sense because 2005 borns are the first core 2010's kids since they started school in 2010 and had ALL their core childhood in the 2010's (5-10) and they were born the same year YouTube came out. Also, 2004 is usually the absolute latest birth year considered millennials, which is something I disagree with but they are definitely early gen Z IMO.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: unicornic on 12/09/17 at 3:45 pm


I agree with this. It makes sense because 2005 borns are the first core 2010's kids since they started school in 2010 and had ALL their core childhood in the 2010's (5-10) and they were born the same year YouTube came out. Also, 2004 is usually the absolute latest birth year considered millennials, which is something I disagree with but they are definitely early gen Z IMO.

Yes, and they were born in the second half of the 2000s.  This is how I’d put it:
1995-1999: Y/Z cusp
2000-2004: Early Z
2005-2009: Core Z

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Rainbowz on 12/09/17 at 3:51 pm


Yes, and they were born in the second half of the 2000s.  This is how I’d put it:
1995-1999: Y/Z cusp
2000-2004: Early Z
2005-2009: Core Z

I agree 100% with this.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek3 on 12/09/17 at 4:01 pm


Yes, and they were born in the second half of the 2000s.  This is how I’d put it:
1995-1999: Y/Z cusp
2000-2004: Early Z
2005-2009: Core Z

On Youtube comments, people born in 2000-2004 say they're not Gen Z because they still had VHS tapes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 12/09/17 at 4:25 pm


On Youtube comments, people born in 2000-2004 say they're not Gen Z because they still had VHS tapes.
And that's where they are wrong because they love to use the technology aspect while purposely excluding the others. ::) Just because they still had VHS tapes doesn't make them a Millennial.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Longaotian00 on 12/09/17 at 4:27 pm


Yes, and they were born in the second half of the 2000s.  This is how I’d put it:
1995-1999: Y/Z cusp
2000-2004: Early Z
2005-2009: Core Z


I personally consider my self y/z cusp and 2004 to be core z

Check for new replies or respond here...