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: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Chrisrj on 01/10/06 at 2:56 am

I'm just wondering how things have changed (for you or in general) since 2000, considering it's like 1990 vs. 1996.

I know there's some things.  Cartoon Network went to regular cable in 2000 and it had Dexter's Laboratory and Powerpuff Girls, now it's all highly glammorized and commercial, aimed mostly for children except for Adult Swim(like a 2nd Nickelodeon).

TiVo gained lots of popularity in 2004-05, instead of just being in some people's homes.

People still had dial-up, but now it's only a few people.

Thots?

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: kellygoo72 on 01/10/06 at 3:33 am


I'm just wondering how things have changed (for you or in general) since 2000, considering it's like 1990 vs. 1996.

I know there's some things.  Cartoon Network went to regular cable in 2000 and it had Dexter's Laboratory and Powerpuff Girls, now it's all highly glammorized and commercial, aimed mostly for children except for Adult Swim(like a 2nd Nickelodeon).

TiVo gained lots of popularity in 2004-05, instead of just being in some people's homes.

People still had dial-up, but now it's only a few people.

Thots?
  Well, the one change thats immediate in my mind is... im 6yrs older!!!  WAH... And speaking of Cartoon Network, I love that staion but I think it is so sad that The Flintstones are never shown.. I know its old but it is a CLASSIC... sad, really really sad :\'(

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: GoodRedShirt on 01/10/06 at 3:47 am


  Well, the one change thats immediate in my mind is... im 6yrs older!!!  WAH... And speaking of Cartoon Network, I love that staion but I think it is so sad that The Flintstones are never shown.. I know its old but it is a CLASSIC... sad, really really sad :\'(
Hmm. Cartoon Network here always plays Flintstones and Jetsons, which I quite enjoyed until we got rid of our cable connection.

2000:
- I was turning 15.
- I was still in school, entering my 11th year.
- Radio was certainly alot easier to listen to.
- other stuff

2006:
- I will be turning 21.
- First grey hair.
- 3rd year university.
- Radio sucks now (apart from student/college based stations)
- other stuff

Still hard to believe 2000 was 6 years ago!  :o

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: bbigd04 on 01/10/06 at 4:21 am

In 2000 I had DSL for the first time, it was not as reliable or fast back then as it is in now 2006, but better than dialup still. Also first got digital cable in 2000, it was new. A 800 MHz computer cost about $1,000. Digital cell phones were taking over for analog, wireless web was coming out, but it was again not nearly as good as wireless internet in 2005. Have things changed a whole lot since 2000, no not really. I would call it a slightly less advanced 2006. A lot of the teen pop/boy bands were big, (Britney, Christina Aguilera, Backstreet Boys, NSync, Jessica Simpson, Pink, 98 Degrees, etc.). Now hip-hop has a more dominant presence, with AC pop (like Kelly Clarkson and Natasha Bedingfield) and some alternative/rock being popular as well. I turned 13 in 2000, turning 19 in 2006. HDTV was pretty new in 2000, and only a few real expensive projection tvs were HD capable. TVs were still all pretty much CRT based. In 2006 you see all these little LCD tvs in the store with the big CRT tube ones shoved in the corner somewhere. LCD monitors really weren't popular yet either. Oh yeah and Who Wants to Be A Millionaire was popular, I used to watch that all the time. A couple of other prime-time game shows appeared because of the success of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (Greed, 21)- they failed. The first Survivor was also in 2000.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: GoodRedShirt on 01/10/06 at 4:58 am

I'd say music has gotten better over the last 5-6 years. Maybe It's because I've opened up to more alternative bands? Who knows. Technology has definatley advanced in that short period.  :o

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: danootaandme on 01/10/06 at 5:45 am



The shift will come when all the lazy, half smart, pseudo music geniuses demand the change,  when
they turn off all the drivel, stop sitting at the computers and downloading what they have been told is the
next big thing and return to the small venues and throw their support to the groups that are
out there innovating while driving around to 4 or 5 different clubs a week waiting for an audience. 

You got me before my coffee, but that could be a good thing, it is something that was needed to be said.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Donnie Darko on 01/10/06 at 5:45 pm

Nowhere near the diff of 1980-86 or 1990-96, but some changes:

-Boy bands are dead
-Numetal is dying
-New president (a worse one IMO)
-Eminem is a family man
-Britney's gone the family way
-Techno is no longer chart-topping
-Country is no longer chart-topping
-Reality shows new trend in '00, '06 reality is fixed in
-More hi-tech computers
-Rich people have Wireless, about half of Net users have hi-speed
-post 9/11

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Chris S on 01/11/06 at 12:27 am

2000
I entered my teen years
I ended 7th grade and started 8th
I was getting picked on at school
Was going through depression
We got rid of dial up

2006
I enter my last year of teenhood
I will end freshman year of college and start sophomore year
I am happy
We have broadband

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: kellygoo72 on 01/11/06 at 12:32 am


Hmm. Cartoon Network here always plays Flintstones and Jetsons, which I quite enjoyed until we got rid of our cable connection.

2000:
- I was turning 15.
- I was still in school, entering my 11th year.
- Radio was certainly alot easier to listen to.
- other stuff

2006:
- I will be turning 21.
- First grey hair.
- 3rd year university.
- Radio sucks now (apart from student/college based stations)
- other stuff

Still hard to believe 2000 was 6 years ago!  :o
  Really?  I live in NYS and we dont see the Flintstones.... wah!!! 21 huh?  Wow,, I remember 21........ SORTA!  lol

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Stompgal on 01/11/06 at 3:49 am

2000
I turned 13 in May 2000
My grandma died of lung cancer a month later
I started to use message boards on the Internet
School got a bit better (I started Year 9 in September 2000)
My eldest cousin turned 18 in October 2000

2006
I'll celebrate my 19th birthday this year
I'll continue going to ILS (Independent Living Skills) classes for adults until July
In September, I'll either start college again or go to a residental home in Weston-Super-Mare

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: rich1981 on 01/12/06 at 3:57 am

2000

Turned 19 by July and became a sophomore at UCSD
Started to make use of the internet (dialup)
Younger brother wins Padres scholarship


2006

Will turn 25 this July
First year without school (graduated with Master's degree last December)
Seeking full time job in software engineering/development
Younger brother in freshmen year
Making heavy use of internet (broadband)
Wearing prescription glasses

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Matt the Rat76 on 01/12/06 at 1:49 pm

2000:
I was 24 at that year
boy bands are in the dying age
britney was cool
survivor started and the NBA on NBC are in the dying stages

2006:
29 now be 30 in april 22
boy bands dead
britney married k-fed (bad move)
survivor is in 13 season and the NBA is on ABC

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: ultraviolet52 on 01/12/06 at 8:25 pm

2000
Personally
- I turned 18 on May 21st, attended Senior Ball a few weeks prior and graduated in June.
- Was working remodeling
- Did not know how to drive, although I did have a permit.
- Still had dial-up
- Grew out bangs
Culturally
- Britney still riding high on first CD success
- Y2K was the obvious big deal of the time
- Dot Commers were still riding on the wave of a sudden explosion in websites.
- George W. Bush elected in a now famous election. Also the first year I was able to vote. I voted for Al Gore.


2006
Personally
- Bangs are back now!
- I Look a little bit more my age (going on 24)- more wrinkles around my eyes, gaining weight has become rather easy, lol.
- My overall view of the world has matured more.
- Have been driving for 3 years now.
- Been working for newspaper going on 4 years in June.
Culturally
- George W. Bush is in 2nd term.
- Music has seemed to take a turn for the better in the last year or two.
- National Security is kinda wobbly since 9/11 and Iraqi War.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: ultraviolet52 on 01/12/06 at 8:48 pm



The shift will come when all the lazy, half smart, pseudo music geniuses demand the change,  when
they turn off all the drivel, stop sitting at the computers and downloading what they have been told is the
next big thing and return to the small venues and throw their support to the groups that are
out there innovating while driving around to 4 or 5 different clubs a week waiting for an audience. 

You got me before my coffee, but that could be a good thing, it is something that was needed to be said.



Or maybe when people who sit at a computer 24/7 downloading music decide to pick up a guitar or buy a keyboard and put their musical yearnings to use. I know I would more, but heck, sometimes I find downloading more relaxing sometimes - but I would like to play more instruments once I get schooling done.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Roadgeek on 01/12/06 at 9:27 pm

2000:

I was 10-11.
I was in 4th-5th Grade.
Went to Madison Elementary School.
Shopping at the almost dead Carolina Circle Mall.

2006:

I'm 16.
I'm in 9th Grade.
Going to Pendle Hill Christian School.
No longer shopping at the demolished Carolina Circle Mall. :\'( Instead, the ultra contemporary and trendy Four Seasons Mall.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: bbigd04 on 02/07/06 at 12:58 am

I found a couple old computer ads I have from 2000. One is a Dell holiday ad from November 2000, and the other is from a Mac Warehouse magazine from early 2000.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: velvetoneo on 02/09/06 at 7:56 pm

In 2000, dial-up was still standard. Now, almost nobody in the middle-class and up has it, at least in the Northeast. Also, flat-screen TVs and LCD screens were much less common. Digital cable was pretty common by then, but has gotten even more common. So have ordering movies On Demand, Netflix, and associated services. Lots of people downloaded music then, but more do now. No iPods-discmans were still the big thing. Cell phones were much less common, 11-year old kids didn't necessarily have them, though the bigger increase in cell phone popularity was between 1995 and 2000. Blogging wasn't terribly common. Online dating sites and the ilk were just becoming popular. Instant messaging was still sort of a hot new thing, at least in the preteen set I was part of. Nu metal and teen pop were still popular, and this was before rap's second big explosion and the deplorable fake-indie stuff we have to deal with now. Computers looked slightly different, and white computers were still commonplace. Downloading music was still illegal.

  Definitely not as big a change as in other decades, but still some pretty big changes.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Classie83 on 02/09/06 at 8:43 pm


I'm just wondering how things have changed (for you or in general) since 2000, considering it's like 1990 vs. 1996.

I know there's some things.  Cartoon Network went to regular cable in 2000 and it had Dexter's Laboratory and Powerpuff Girls, now it's all highly glammorized and commercial, aimed mostly for children except for Adult Swim(like a 2nd Nickelodeon).

TiVo gained lots of popularity in 2004-05, instead of just being in some people's homes.

People still had dial-up, but now it's only a few people.

Thots?




2000
I was 17, a junior in highschool.
Thought I'd graduate college by 2005
I thought Destiny's Child was cool. Not many knew who Beyonce was...
Took the Twin Towers for granted. They were just another building tourists liked....nothing important.
Had webtv....which sucked
Made the decision to take a year off before going to college...
Wondered when I'd be married...


2006
I'm a junior in college....
After taking two years off of school after high school I think I'll be out by 2007 or so, and I'm not looking back!  :P
I think Beyonce dresses like a slut...
Miss seeing the Twin Towers in the skyline at the promanade
Have a nice new computer with cable  :D Talk about fast
Been married for a year and a half...


Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 02/10/06 at 1:40 pm

There havent been any dramatic changes since '00 except of course for the '00 election and 9/11  i guess the main thing is that internet use has grown tremendously in the last 6 years

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/07/16 at 3:10 pm

Now that it's been 10 years, I can say 2006 vs 2000 was a huge change. Even 2003 felt different from 2006!

As Jordan says, the 00s culture seemed to become less colorful and more "anemic" in 2004, for whatever reason. It seems God snapped his fingers that year and said "95% of x-treme things will end right here, right now."

Then, in late 2006, he snapped his fingers again and said "The remaining 5% of x-treme things will die here." ;)

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/07/16 at 3:19 pm

Also, while dial-up began to decline in 2000, it seemed to be shot dead in Spring 2006 (what happened there?)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Aol_subscribers_Q201-Q407.png

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: bchris02 on 06/07/16 at 3:22 pm


Now that it's been 10 years, I can say 2006 vs 2000 was a huge change. Even 2003 felt different from 2006!

As Jordan says, the 00s culture seemed to become less colorful and more "anemic" in 2004, for whatever reason. It seems God snapped his fingers that year and said "95% of x-treme things will end right here, right now."

Then, in late 2006, he snapped his fingers again and said "The remaining 5% of x-treme things will die here." ;)


I feel that 2006 was closer culturally to 2000 than it was to 2010.  Other than the death of pop-punk culture and the popularity of broadband Internet, how was 2006 that different from 2000?

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: bchris02 on 06/07/16 at 3:25 pm


Also, while dial-up began to decline in 2000, it seemed to be shot dead in Spring 2006 (what happened there?)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Aol_subscribers_Q201-Q407.png


2006 was around the time that you could no longer adequately use the modern web with dial-up.  Before then, while broadband was certainly preferred, you could still get around and do most things you needed to do online with 56k.  A lot of sites still had "56k warnings" or a prompt to select high or low bandwidth.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/07/16 at 4:58 pm


I feel that 2006 was closer culturally to 2000 than it was to 2010.  Other than the death of pop-punk culture and the popularity of broadband Internet, how was 2006 that different from 2000?


In my opinion, I don't think a lot of stuff changed between 2000 and 2006. Aside from the election of George W. Bush and 9/11, but it wasn't that big.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/07/16 at 5:00 pm

But 2006 was leaning to the late 00s by the end of the year (as Jordan would say, boring), while 2000 was pure Y2K era (colorful, wacky) with absolutely no sign of the "real 00s".

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/07/16 at 6:37 pm


But 2006 was leaning to the late 00s by the end of the year (as Jordan would say, boring), while 2000 was pure Y2K era (colorful, wacky) with absolutely no sign of the "real 00s".


That's because Jordan is a die-hard early 2000s lover. I mean, it's obvious that he likes anything from 2000-2003, except for pop-princess music. And 2007 also had some mid 2000s influences, as those influences were dying that year.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: JordanK1982 on 06/07/16 at 9:22 pm


But 2006 was leaning to the late 00s by the end of the year (as Jordan would say, boring), while 2000 was pure Y2K era (colorful, wacky) with absolutely no sign of the "real 00s".


This.


That's because Jordan is a die-hard early 2000s lover. I mean, it's obvious that he likes anything from 2000-2003, except for pop-princess music. And 2007 also had some mid 2000s influences, as those influences were dying that year.


And Nu Metal.


I feel that 2006 was closer culturally to 2000 than it was to 2010.  Other than the death of pop-punk culture and the popularity of broadband Internet, how was 2006 that different from 2000?


Pop Punk culture died in 2003, not 2006.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: #Infinity on 06/08/16 at 12:10 am


I feel that 2006 was closer culturally to 2000 than it was to 2010.  Other than the death of pop-punk culture and the popularity of broadband Internet, how was 2006 that different from 2000?


Actually, there are a lot of differences:

* YouTube became popular in 2006. Wikipedia was already established. MySpace was in its peak, while Facebook became mainstream. In 2000, on the other hand, even Internet forums were merely just starting to become popular.
* 2000 was pre-9/11. 2006 was post.
* Crunk/snap music wasn't yet popular in 2000; instead you had the last gasps of the Miami bass movement, with "Who Let the Dogs Out" and "Don't Think I'm Not" being big hits that year.
* The shuffle-beat urban style that dominated mid-1997 through 2005 pretty much died in 2006, instead being overtaken by more uptempo urban pop. Compare "SexyBack" to "Try Again."
* Frosted, spiked hair on guys and spaghetti straps and sweats still dominated fashion in 2000. By 2006, it was all about bushy wing cuts, straightened Avril-Lavigne-style cuts, and emo/goth.
* 2000 was still mostly part of the fifth generation of gaming, during which most popular titles had primitive-looking polygon graphics. By 2006, however, the seventh generation was taking off, not to mention online modes were much more integral to the gaming industry.
* People in 2000 still largely had pagers, if not early cell phones. In 2006, flip-phones and Blackberries were standard.
* Animated movies were still predominantly traditionally animated in 2000. By 2006, traditional animation on the big screen was dead, aside from a few later revivals, and CGI was completely standard.
* Shows like Friends, Frasier, and the X-Files were still among the most significant television programs of 2000. By 2006, The Office, Heroes, The Wire, and 30 Rock were huge.
* Excluding Westlife's "Amazing," Y2K-style teen pop was long gone by 2006.
* VHS was still easily the dominant home video format in 2000. By 2006, VHS was just about dead, DVD's were dominant, and Blu-ray and Digital HD were just being introduced.
* People still relied on portable CD players in 2000 if they wanted to listen to music on the go, but by 2006, it was all about mp3 players.
* 2000 still had advertisements that looked like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Dude_Wheres_My_Car_movie.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41PXnpyCLEL.jpg

* Although post-post-grunge first entered the mainstream in 2000 on the heels of Creed and 3 Doors Down, pop rock was still largely dominated by Y2K movements, such as rap-rock (Limp Bizkit, Kid Rock, Papa Roach, etc.), power pop (i.e., Nine Days' "Absolutely (Story of a Girl)," Evan and Jaron's "Crazy for This Girl," Third Eye Blind's "Never Let You Go," Eve 6's "Promise," and Hanson's "This Time Around"), and pop-ska (OPM's "Heaven Is a Half Pipe," Smash Mouth, Sugar Ray, etc.).

To me personally, I can understand why a lot of people would compare most of the 2000s to the late 90s, but 2005 was really the last year, in my opinion, with a fair amount of influences tracing back to the Y2K era. 2006 was more of its own thing, with a few technological breakthroughs giving the world a sneak peak for what would eventually become the 2010s.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 1:34 am


I feel that 2006 was closer culturally to 2000 than it was to 2010.  Other than the death of pop-punk culture and the popularity of broadband Internet, how was 2006 that different from 2000?

I agree with you. It's close to the middle but it is closer to 2000 in my opinion.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: #Infinity on 06/08/16 at 2:40 am


I agree with you. It's close to the middle but it is closer to 2000 in my opinion.


I'd say 2006 is arguably closer to 2000 than 2010, since all of the innovations from around that year were not yet standard like they would be four years later. However, it's still extremely different from 2000, as well. A large gap of time is guaranteed to result in at least a handful of major differences, more or less.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 3:04 am


I'd say 2006 is arguably closer to 2000 than 2010, since all of the innovations from around that year were not yet standard like they would be four years later. However, it's still extremely different from 2000, as well. A large gap of time is guaranteed to result in at least a handful of major differences, more or less.

That's true. I mean there were way more advancements 2000 to 2006 than 2010 to 2016 for example.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: #Infinity on 06/08/16 at 7:08 am


That's true. I mean there were way more advancements 2000 to 2006 than 2010 to 2016 for example.


Yeah, there really hasn't been much progress between the start of this decade and now, at least on a technological and structural level. You can certainly argue that social values have altered drastically, not to mention everything feels a lot shallower. It's really amazing how 2010 was actually a great friggin' year for pop culture, yet the mid-2010s have been utterly abysmal except for movies.

Frankly, you could pretty much live like it was 2016 as early as 2007 if you owned the original iPhone, used Facebook and Twitter, watched YouTube and Netflix, and were immersed in the hipster culture of the time (it wasn't more popular than emo yet, but it definitely existed, especially depending on where you lived). It wouldn't hurt, either, if you were on the more extreme, one-sided end of politics.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: 80sfan on 06/08/16 at 10:29 am

I agree, 2007 to now all just blends in!  :D  :D

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: ArcticFox on 06/08/16 at 10:41 am


Yeah, there really hasn't been much progress between the start of this decade and now, at least on a technological and structural level. You can certainly argue that social values have altered drastically, not to mention everything feels a lot shallower. It's really amazing how 2010 was actually a great friggin' year for pop culture, yet the mid-2010s have been utterly abysmal except for movies.


That isn't true at all. If anything it's the other way around. I started high school in 2010 and I thought everything ranged from bland to bad. The music all sounded the same with most of it being really cheesy, most television wasn't that interesting, and there were only a few movies worth watching each season of the year. The clothes and hairstyles were also incredibly cheesy. As a matter of fact, I believe that the 2010-2011 school year is comfortably the worst school year for popular culture of the 2010s.

Things got so much better in 2013. Everything ranging from television to movies to clothes to, especially, the music. The early 2010's electropop was already annoying by the end of 2010–that's how long it overstayed its welcome. And I have absolutely no problem with social media–it's not going to go away.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 11:10 am


That isn't true at all. If anything it's the other way around. I started high school in 2010 and I thought everything ranged from bland to bad. The music all sounded the same with most of it being really cheesy, most television wasn't that interesting, and there were only a few movies worth watching each season of the year. The clothes and hairstyles were also incredibly cheesy. As a matter of fact, I believe that the 2010-2011 school year is comfortably the worst school year for popular culture of the 2010s.


It was rather subjective than objective with what you said. I for one, actually liked the 2010-2011 school year. It was when pop culture was still tolerable, and it didn't have lots of repetitive electronic music playing on the radio. It wasn't until early 2012 when it became prevalent to electronic music being really dominant at the time.


Things got so much better in 2013. Everything ranging from television to movies to clothes to, especially, the music. The early 2010's electropop was already annoying by the end of 2010–that's how long it overstayed its welcome. And I have absolutely no problem with social media–it's not going to go away.


Well yeah. I'm pretty sure anyone can agree with you on that one. Social media would just replaced by different websites in every time now, since the Internet is so proliferated around the world.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: ArcticFox on 06/08/16 at 12:21 pm


It was rather subjective than objective with what you said. I for one, actually liked the 2010-2011 school year. It was when pop culture was still tolerable, and it didn't have lots of repetitive electronic music playing on the radio. It wasn't until early 2012 when it became prevalent to electronic music being really dominant at the time.


Yes, music is subjective. It's pretty clear that that was #Infy's age speaking, because she was a senior then, but I just found it intriguing how she manages to criticize every element of the present day and yet not see or even straight up reject the innovations our culture has made in the past three years.

Well yeah. I'm pretty sure anyone can agree with you on that one. Social media would just replaced by different websites in every time now, since the Internet is so proliferated around the world.

Yes. Social media (originally called social networking btw, which makes more sense) is the new way to interact and connect with your friends when you are not with them physically. Social Networking is also a great way to maintain friendships when you no longer live in the same place together. What I also find funny is when people criticize websites like Tumblr, Snapchat, and Instagram is that these same people don't understand the websites' original purposes. Tumblr was made to be an "insta-blog" type of website (now remembered for porn and SJW), Snapchat was made to appeal to an ever-decreasing attention span of youth so they can see as many images as they can in as little amount of time (to which the pictures will then disappear forever), and Instagram was made to be the online equivalent of scrapbooking. Out of all of them, Instagram is certainly the most popular and has completely managed to stay true to its original purpose, which is why I like it so much.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 12:35 pm


Yes, music is subjective. It's pretty clear that that was #Infy's age speaking, because she was a senior then, but I just found it intriguing how she manages to criticize every element of the present day and yet not see or even straight up reject the innovations our culture has made in the past three years.


Like I said, it's subjective as hell. Just because she was a high school senior in 2010, that doesn't mean she would instantly agree with your beliefs. I despised modern pop culture since 2012, and I have seen thousands of teenagers listening to trap rap or whatever the hell they listen to nowadays. Not to mention that they go obsessed over their freakin' smartphones for crying out loud. I know people have been obsessed over their cell phones since the early 2000s, but it's just even more disruptive and annoying.


Yes. Social media (originally called social networking btw, which makes more sense) is the new way to interact and connect with your friends when you are not with them physically. Social Networking is also a great way to maintain friendships when you no longer live in the same place together. What I also find funny is when people criticize websites like Tumblr, Snapchat, and Instagram is that these same people don't understand the websites' original purposes. Tumblr was made to be an "insta-blog" type of website (now remembered for porn and SJWs), Snapchat was made to appeal to an ever-decreasing attention span of youth so they can see as many images as they can in as little amount of time (to which the pictures will then disappear forever), and Instagram was made to be the online equivalent of scrapbooking. Out of all of them, Instagram is certainly the most popular and has completely managed to stay true to its original purpose, which is why I like it so much.


Well yeah, it seems to be like the sane version of Snapchat, but I don't really buy into what they're posting. Not to mention that you have to use their mobile app, so you could get an account. I don't know what's the deal with that. I mean, you could do the same features with Twitter, and you could make an account on your desktop. But with Instagram, it's like they're thinking that all of their members are smartphone obsessing consumers. Which is why I don't like Instagram that much.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 12:46 pm


I agree, 2007 to now all just blends in!  :D  :D

I still include 2007 with the classic 2000s period. 2008 to 2016 is more accurate.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 12:56 pm


I still include 2007 with the classic 2000s period. 2008 to 2016 is more accurate.


2008 wasn't really that definitive towards the early-mid 2010s. I'll rather put it with the classic 2000s. It's more like 2009 to 2016 to me.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 1:27 pm


2008 wasn't really that definitive towards the early-mid 2010s. I'll rather put it with the classic 2000s. It's more like 2009 to 2016 to me.

I think 2008 is the year things started to change. 2009 is just the year followed by the change. I said it countless times on here before; Obama getting elected, Lady Gaga having her first hit, music more electro dance oriented, Katy Perry debuted, the economic crisis and recession, etc. These were all huge changes in 2008. Out of nowhere people are having this fixiation with 2009, when it was 2008 when it was truly the transition. Or saying 2008-2009 is also fair.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 1:31 pm


I think 2008 is the year things started to change. 2009 is just the year followed by the change. I said it countless times on here before; Obama getting elected, Lady Gaga having her first hit, music more electro dance oriented, Katy Perry debuted, the economic crisis and recession, etc. These were all huge changes in 2008.


But it didn't happen until late 2008, when the US was going through a change.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 1:32 pm


But it didn't happen until late 2008, when the US was going through a change.

Well late 2008 is still considered 2008.  ;)

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 1:33 pm


Well late 2008 is still considered 2008.  ;)


But it's not like the changes occurred throughout most of the year.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 1:35 pm


But it's not like the changes occurred throughout most of the year.

You're right it happened mid 2008 or Fall 2008, but I still like placing 2007 as the final classic year because it was the last full year. Because 2008 was the start of changes, I like placing it in the current period.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 1:51 pm


You're right it happened mid 2008 or Fall 2008, but I still like placing 2007 as the final classic year because it was the last full year. Because 2008 was the start of changes, I like placing it in the current period.


Well, Katy Perry's debut happened in mid 2008. I could remember her first song being aired on the radio at the time. As for the others, they happened around late 2008.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 2:00 pm


Well, Katy Perry's debut happened in mid 2008. I could remember her first song being aired on the radio at the time. As for the others, they happened around late 2008.

Mid, late, same thing. We're talking about months here. ;D And Fall/Late 2008 is still 2008.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 2:08 pm


Mid, late, same thing. We're talking about months here. ;D And Fall/Late 2008 is still 2008.


Yeah, but late 2008 was like the turning point for 2009 to start. I mean, it's not like people we're going to expect that Obama was going to win throughout the entire year of 2008.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: bchris02 on 06/08/16 at 4:41 pm


I think 2008 is the year things started to change. 2009 is just the year followed by the change. I said it countless times on here before; Obama getting elected, Lady Gaga having her first hit, music more electro dance oriented, Katy Perry debuted, the economic crisis and recession, etc. These were all huge changes in 2008. Out of nowhere people are having this fixiation with 2009, when it was 2008 when it was truly the transition. Or saying 2008-2009 is also fair.


You have to look at when these trends approached peak popularity.  2008 had a few electropop songs towards the end of the year but most of the music that year was similar to 2007.  Just because something started in a certain year doesn't mean it was the dominant culture.  The hipster fad, as we currently know it, began in 2009, but it is associated primarily with mid 2010s culture because this is when it has peaked.  Also, Katy Perry's first album wasn't as transformative as Gaga's.  2009 was the true year of transition.  In the fall of 2009, things were comfortably early 2010s.

MySpace and Emo were still very relevant in 2008 for crying out loud.  People who like to associate 2008 with current culture and act like very little has changed would probably be surprised at how much has changed if they had to go back and relive 2008.

Another thing is everything you mentioned; Obamamania, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, electropop, the recession, etc aren't really relevant anymore in 2016. 

Lady Gaga and Katy Perry haven't had hits in years.  Obama's perception ranges from hated to apathetic.  The recession is over.  Electropop died around 2012.  I don't see how you can say 2008 is the basis for today's culture.  The early '10s possibly but not the mid 10s.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 5:00 pm


MySpace and Emo were still very relevant in 2008 for crying out loud.  People who like to associate 2008 with current culture and act like very little has changed would probably be surprised at how much has changed if they had to go back and relive 2008.


Finally, someone who actually respects 2008 as an outdated year in this argument. I don't know how 2008 could be related to 2016 at any time. Everything that happened in 2008 was irrelevant towards 2016. Not to mention that we're almost done with Obama's presidency, since we're five months away from the presidential election.


Lady Gaga and Katy Perry haven't had hits in years.  Obama's perception ranges from hated to apathetic.  The recession is over.  Electropop died around 2012.  I don't see how you can say 2008 is the basis for today's culture.  The early '10s possibly but not the mid 10s.


2008 was only related to 2009-2012. But that's because their pop culture was still recent at the time.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 5:04 pm


You have to look at when these trends approached peak popularity.  2008 had a few electropop songs towards the end of the year but most of the music that year was similar to 2007.  Just because something started in a certain year doesn't mean it was the dominant culture.  The hipster fad, as we currently know it, began in 2009, but it is associated primarily with mid 2010s culture because this is when it has peaked.  Also, Katy Perry's first album wasn't as transformative as Gaga's.  2009 was the true year of transition.  In the fall of 2009, things were comfortably early 2010s.

MySpace and Emo were still very relevant in 2008 for crying out loud.  People who like to associate 2008 with current culture and act like very little has changed would probably be surprised at how much has changed if they had to go back and relive 2008.

Another thing is everything you mentioned; Obamamania, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, electropop, the recession, etc aren't really relevant anymore in 2016. 

Lady Gaga and Katy Perry haven't had hits in years.  Obama's perception ranges from hated to apathetic.  The recession is over.  Electropop died around 2012.  I don't see how you can say 2008 is the basis for today's culture.  The early '10s possibly but not the mid 10s.

I explained my reasons countless times with the recession, the U.S. election, electropop, most people thought 2008 was a tranaitional year but out of nowhere you guys are switching it to 2009 now. We've never had a big shift as 2008 since the 90s.

Todays culture began its roots in 2008. We have a relatively similar feel today since late 2008, you have to go into details to explain what's different. For the most part, 2008 to 2016 has a consistent culture with not a lot of changes. I'm not saying there are no changes, of course we have tablets, smartphones, VR now, Google Glass now, but the overall culture has been similar throughout.

2008 was totally a transitional year for both my personal life (becoming a teen) and the culture and world events I experienced. There's not a damn thing anyone can say to change my mind about that. But I'm totally cool with saying 2008-2009 was the big transitional period.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: #Infinity on 06/08/16 at 5:11 pm


That isn't true at all. If anything it's the other way around. I started high school in 2010 and I thought everything ranged from bland to bad. The music all sounded the same with most of it being really cheesy, most television wasn't that interesting, and there were only a few movies worth watching each season of the year. The clothes and hairstyles were also incredibly cheesy. As a matter of fact, I believe that the 2010-2011 school year is comfortably the worst school year for popular culture of the 2010s.

Things got so much better in 2013. Everything ranging from television to movies to clothes to, especially, the music. The early 2010's electropop was already annoying by the end of 2010–that's how long it overstayed its welcome. And I have absolutely no problem with social media–it's not going to go away.


Honestly, I really don't care what you have to say. I liked the early 2010s, you didn't, just let it be.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: #Infinity on 06/08/16 at 5:15 pm


Like I said, it's subjective as hell. Just because she was a high school senior in 2010, that doesn't mean she would instantly agree with your beliefs. I despised modern pop culture since 2012, and I have seen thousands of teenagers listening to trap rap or whatever the hell they listen to nowadays. Not to mention that they go obsessed over their freakin' smartphones for crying out loud. I know people have been obsessed over their cell phones since the early 2000s, but it's just even more disruptive and annoying.


Frankly, I wouldn't sweat it. ArcticFox is extremely opinionated, which at first made him a lot of fun to debate with, but after what he said a month and a half ago, I wouldn't take anything he says to heart.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 5:38 pm


I explained my reasons countless times with the recession, the U.S. election, electropop, most people thought 2008 was a tranaitional year but out of nowhere you guys are switching it to 2009 now. We've never had a big shift as 2008 since the 90s.


Just because 2008 was a noticeable transition from the 2000s that turned into the 2010s, that doesn't mean it's still relevant to 2016. I've been saying that for a million times here on InThe00s, yet people like you and Zelek just don't give a crap. 2009 is more culturally related to 2016 than 2008 for crying out loud. We had the first year of Obama's presidency, had digital television being mandatory towards all TV stations, had iPhones slowly becoming popular, electropop being extremely popular, etc. You must be kidding when you said that 2008 was more transitioned than 2009, because I barely saw any differences with 2000s culture as a kid in 2008. In 2009, you could've seen me surprised with Toon Disney and Nickelodeon being rebranded into what they turn out to be today.

Today's culture began its roots in 2008. We have a relatively similar feel today since late 2008, you have to go into details to explain what's different. For the most part, 2008 to 2016 has a consistent culture with not a lot of changes. I'm not saying there are no changes, of course we have tablets, smartphones, VR now, Google Glass now, but the overall culture has been similar throughout.

That doesn't mean we had iPads, Snapchat, Vine, Instagram, Google+, and trap rap back in 2008. All of that stuff didn't exist eight years ago, and it seems drastically different with 2016.


2008 was totally a transitional year for both my personal life (becoming a teen) and the culture and world events I experienced. There's not a damn thing anyone can say to change my mind about that. But I'm totally cool with saying 2008-2009 was the big transitional period.


If it's a transitional year for your personal life, then I could understand. I mean, 2010 was a transitional year for my personal life, because it was when 2000s culture ultimately faded away to me and I graduated elementary school at the time.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 5:44 pm


Frankly, I wouldn't sweat it. ArcticFox is extremely opinionated, which at first made him a lot of fun to debate with, but after what he said a month and a half ago, I wouldn't take anything he says to heart.


Well, we did have him saying informative stuff about the 2000s. But after he publicly said that the transsexual bathroom law was a good thing, I didn't think he was that inspirational to me.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 5:46 pm


Just because 2008 was a noticeable transition from the 2000s that turned into the 2010s, that doesn't mean it's still relevant to 2016. I've been saying that for a million times here on InThe00s, yet people like you and Zelek just don't give a crap. 2009 is more culturally related to 2016 than 2008 for crying out loud. We had the first year of Obama's presidency, had digital television being mandatory towards all TV stations, had iPhones slowly becoming popular, electropop being extremely popular, etc. You must be kidding when you said that 2008 was more transitioned than 2009, because I barely saw any differences with 2000s culture as a kid in 2008. In 2009, you could've seen me surprised with Toon Disney and Nickelodeon being rebranded into what they turn out to be today.


I'm not changing my mind. 2008 was the year of transition. The biggest reason is the recession in Fall 08', that set up a completely different mood in 2009. The other things like Lady Gaga coming into the spotlight only adds to the transition.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: mqg96 on 06/08/16 at 5:48 pm

Also, just to let some people know on here, just because I was a freshman in high school during the 2010-2011 school year instead of a senior didn't mean I didn't enjoy the pop culture at the time. I consider the 2010-2011 school year to be the peak of early 2010's culture and I enjoyed it. Starting high school and being in so much relief and joy to be out of that terrible  8-P middle school was great for me. My first year of cross country had a dreamy vibe, making a bunch of new friends in my grade who I still keep in contact with today, getting involved with my high school youth ministry for the first time, and talking to a lot of upperclassmen which was a huge part of my life. Summer 2011 right after freshman year ended was the best summer I had since 2006, because of getting my learner's permit, going to Ohio to meet my cousins, and going to New York City for the first time ever and we stayed for a whole week! I look back at 2010 as a huge transition year for me going from middle school to high school. I enjoyed the pop culture my freshman, sophomore, and senior years of high school. What I liked about my freshman year of high school (2010-2011) was how epic the electropop music and hip-hop music were at the time, and I remember hearing about the Kinect coming out for the XBOX 360 and Call of Duty Black Ops had came out and got real big at the time. The fashion was very colorful and bright. I actually enjoyed bright colored logo T-shirts or polo shirts at the time. Of course, I've said this many times before, but the 2012-2013 school year was my least favorite, not just pop culturally, but even for my personal life too and how difficult junior year was in general. It's hard to explain, but my sophomore year of high school was my favorite for the atmosphere and environment of the school, but my freshman and senior years were my favorites for the pop culture, like mirror images of each other in a good way.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: #Infinity on 06/08/16 at 5:50 pm


Well, we did have him saying informative stuff about the 2000s. But after he publicly said that the transsexual bathroom law was a good thing, I didn't think he was that inspirational to me.


He used to be one of my favorite members here because his passionate responses made for riveting debates. Unfortunately, I'm not going to just let go of what he said because it was incredibly offensive to me. It also essentially undermines the point he likes to make that I'm apparently constantly just looking for things to hate about the mid-2010s (which I'm not; movies are still excellent, and I have indeed tried to overcome the obstacles of current popular culture, but with no luck), and makes any level of pity he tries to show me seem insincere. Ignoring him just seemed like my best option.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: mqg96 on 06/08/16 at 5:51 pm


I'm not changing my mind. 2008 was the year of transition. The biggest reason is the recession in Fall 08', that set up a completely different mood in 2009. The other things like Lady Gaga coming into the spotlight only adds to the transition.



Just because 2008 was a noticeable transition from the 2000s that turned into the 2010s, that doesn't mean it's still relevant to 2016. I've been saying that for a million times here on InThe00s, yet people like you and Zelek just don't give a crap. 2009 is more culturally related to 2016 than 2008 for crying out loud. We had the first year of Obama's presidency, had digital television being mandatory towards all TV stations, had iPhones slowly becoming popular, electropop being extremely popular, etc. You must be kidding when you said that 2008 was more transitioned than 2009, because I barely saw any differences with 2000s culture as a kid in 2008. In 2009, you could've seen me surprised with Toon Disney and Nickelodeon being rebranded into what they turn out to be today.


As I've said many times before, I consider 2008 & 2009 to both be transition years from 2000's culture to 2010's culture. There was DEFINITELY a shift during the second half of 2008 without a question, but that continued throughout the first half of 2009, and by Fall 2009 early 2010's culture was in full effect. Spring 2008 was still completely late 2000's.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/08/16 at 5:52 pm


I know there's some things.  Cartoon Network went to regular cable in 2000 and it had Dexter's Laboratory and Powerpuff Girls, now it's all highly glammorized and commercial, aimed mostly for children except for Adult Swim(like a 2nd Nickelodeon).

I know this guy won't respond because it was 10 years ago, but the big difference between CN 2000 vs. CN 2006 is that CN was good in 2000 and was quickly turning to S H I T in 2006. :P


People still had dial-up, but now it's only a few people.

Indeed, dial up suddenly crashed and burned in Spring 2006 (few months after this post was made) for some reason, rather than a slow decline as it had been previously.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Aol_subscribers_Q201-Q407.png

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: mqg96 on 06/08/16 at 5:56 pm

Eazy-EMAN1995, NewYorkEagle, and UltraGameDog (formerly mxcrashxm) are my closest friends on my site. The other ones who I talk to regularly I consider as my buddies or regular friends. The people who I don't talk to much on here at all are simply my acquaintances. I don't know of anybody who's become my enemy on this site. I'm usually a chill person on here.... well not always  ;D

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/08/16 at 5:56 pm

I don't see why ArcticFox makes people here mad. He seems like a chill guy to me. Did he post something political that was offensive or something?

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 5:57 pm


I'm not changing my mind. 2008 was the year of transition. The biggest reason is the recession in Fall 08', that set up a completely different mood in 2009. The other things like Lady Gaga coming into the spotlight only adds to the transition.


The recession only happened in the late 2000s/early 2010s. There's no signs of the Great Recession happening here in the mid 2010s. Why does it matter if it's politically irrelevant today? All of that stuff you mentioned were a TRANSITION towards early 2010s culture, not mid 2010s culture.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Zelek2 on 06/08/16 at 5:58 pm

Let's just stop arguing about 2008 vs. 2016 and get back to the topic, which is 2000 vs. 2006.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 6:03 pm


I know this guy won't respond because it was 10 years ago, but the big difference between CN 2000 vs. CN 2006 is that CN was good in 2000 and was quickly turning to S H I T in 2006. :P
Indeed, dial up suddenly crashed and burned in Spring 2006 (few months after this post was made) for some reason, rather than a slow decline as it had been previously.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Aol_subscribers_Q201-Q407.png


Nobody has even used dial-up since the mid 2000s. Probably before 2006, so it's no big surprise. Also, if we're going through classic times of Cartoon Network, then 2007 could've been a better candidate. It was the first year of Stuart Snyder's presidency after Jim Staples stepped out in the 2007 Boston bomb scare.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 6:05 pm


I don't see why ArcticFox makes people here mad. He seems like a chill guy to me. Did he post something political that was offensive or something?


Well, he posted something about agreeing with the transsexual bathroom law recently, which encourages anti-LGBT discrimination in the South. However, this pissed off Infinity, since she's a transsexual and didn't approve of ArcticFox ever since.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 6:08 pm


Let's just stop arguing about 2008 vs. 2016 and get back to the topic, which is 2000 vs. 2006.


2006 was barely related towards 2000, since the pop culture and politics were way different at the time.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: #Infinity on 06/08/16 at 6:12 pm


Well, he posted something about agreeing with the transsexual bathroom law recently, which encourages anti-LGBT discrimination in the South. However, this pissed off Infinity, since she's a transsexual and didn't approve of ArcticFox ever since.


Well, not only that, he wrote a long, bitter essay about why transgender bathroom rights are a horrible thing, how they would immediately endanger all the women he personally knew. It's one thing to have a different, alternative perspective on the matter, but the fact, too, that he bluntly stated that transgendered people do not have the right to use the same restroom as their cisgendered counterparts pretty much means he's automatically segregating me, regardless on how I identify inside or how much I pass on the outside.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 6:17 pm


Well, not only that, he wrote a long, bitter essay about why transgender bathroom rights are a horrible thing, how they would immediately endanger all the women he personally knew. It's one thing to have a different, alternative perspective on the matter, but the fact, too, that he bluntly stated that transgendered people do not have the right to use the same restroom as their cisgendered counterparts pretty much means he's automatically segregating me, regardless on how I identify inside or how much I pass on the outside.


That too. I almost forgot that he written that message a while back.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 6:54 pm

2000 and 2006 had differences, but they were still both classic 2000s years. Yeah that's right, I called 2000 a classic 2000s year.  ;D

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 7:22 pm


2000 and 2006 had differences, but they were still both classic 2000s years. Yeah that's right, I called 2000 a classic 2000s year.  ;D


It's probably the least definitive classic 2000s year, compared to 2006.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: #Infinity on 06/08/16 at 7:39 pm


It's probably the least definitive classic 2000s year, compared to 2006.


Actually, I'd argue it was one of the most important years of the 2000s. Music-wise, it produced The Marshall Mathers LP, Hybrid Theory, friggin' Kid A, The Moon and Antarctica, and Stankonia. Those albums all defined the 2000s. 2000 also had the debuts of Survivor and Malcolm in the Middle. Urban and rock music from 2000 also wasn't very different from the majority of the decade. On an overall level,, I'd still agree that 2000 is more 90s than 2000s, but I also consider it more significant to the 2000s decade than 2009, which was either defined by dying 2000s trends or the beginnings of 2010s culture.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 8:27 pm


Actually, I'd argue it was one of the most important years of the 2000s. Music-wise, it produced The Marshall Mathers LP, Hybrid Theory, friggin' Kid A, The Moon and Antarctica, and Stankonia. Those albums all defined the 2000s. 2000 also had the debuts of Survivor and Malcolm in the Middle. Urban and rock music from 2000 also wasn't very different from the majority of the decade. On an overall level,, I'd still agree that 2000 is more 90s than 2000s, but I also consider it more significant to the 2000s decade than 2009, which was either defined by dying 2000s trends or the beginnings of 2010s culture.


I could agree that it was like the cultural beginning of the 2000s, but it wasn't definitive as 2001-2008 to me.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Emman on 06/08/16 at 8:35 pm


Yes, music is subjective. It's pretty clear that that was #Infy's age speaking, because she was a senior then, but I just found it intriguing how she manages to criticize every element of the present day and yet not see or even straight up reject the innovations our culture has made in the past three years.


I think I'm in the same camp with her(I was around 25 during that period though), 2010 imo was the best year for music this decade and I find most popular music today very boring. I haven't notice anything "innovative" since dubstep-into-pop brokethrough in 2011 and we haven't had a huge pop cultural overhaul since the '90s. Can you share what you think has been innovative and interesting that's been happening in pop music over the past three years?


Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: mqg96 on 06/08/16 at 8:52 pm


I think I'm in the same camp with her(I was around 25 during that period though), 2010 imo was the best year for music this decade and I find most popular music today very boring. I haven't notice anything "innovative" since dubstep-into-pop brokethrough in 2011 and we haven't had a huge pop cultural overhaul since the '90s. Can you share what you think has been innovative and interesting that's been happening in pop music over the past three years?


2010 as a full year has been my favorite year for music of this decade as well, songs like DJ Khaled - All I Do Is Win, Katy Perry - Fireworks, Eminem - Not Afraid, Wiz Khalifa - Black & Yellow, and B.O.B. - Airplanes were my favorites, and there were so much more. Late 2013 through 2014 is my 2nd favorite period for music of this decade since it had songs like Aloe Blacc - The Man, Iggy Azalea - Fancy, Katy Perry - Dark Horse, Eminem ft. Rihanna - Monster, and DJ Snake - Turn Down For What.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: nintieskid999 on 06/08/16 at 8:54 pm


I don't see why people see 2000 as a classic 2000s year. The first half of 2001 felt exactly the same as 1998 and 1999.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: mqg96 on 06/08/16 at 8:56 pm


I don't see why people see 2000 as a classic 2000s year. The first half of 2001 felt exactly the same as 1998 and 1999.


When it comes to the first half of the 2000's. 2000-mid 2001 was like the late 90's aftermath. Late 2001-mid 2003 was the main cultural early 2000's. Late 2003 through 2004 was the transition into the mid 2000's and the beginning of core 2000's culture.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: nintieskid999 on 06/08/16 at 9:02 pm


When it comes to the first half of the 2000's. 2000-mid 2001 was like the late 90's aftermath. Late 2001-mid 2003 was the main cultural early 2000's. Late 2003 through 2004 was the transition into the mid 2000's and the beginning of core 2000's culture.


How long do you think the 90s aftermath would have lasted if not for 9/11?

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 9:17 pm


I don't see why people see 2000 as a classic 2000s year. The first half of 2001 felt exactly the same as 1998 and 1999.

1998 and 1999 also felt 2000s too though. If you make the argument the early 00s are the 90s, you can also argue the late 90s are the 00s. The whole Y2K era screams 00s to me more than it screams 90s.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 9:21 pm


1998 and 1999 also felt 2000s too though. If you make the argument the early 00s are the 90s, you can also argue the late 90s are the 00s. The whole Y2K trend screams 00s to me more than it screams 90s.


1999 is what I could understand, but 1998 felt more 90s than 2000s. I mean, it was the last year before Y2K culture became really extreme to people.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: nintieskid999 on 06/08/16 at 9:22 pm


1998 and 1999 also felt 2000s too though. If you make the argument the early 00s are the 90s, you can also argue the late 90s are the 00s. The whole Y2K era feels 00s to me more than it feels 90s.


1999 had a totally different feel than 2005.
What did they have in common?

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/08/16 at 9:23 pm


1999 had a totally different feel than 2005.
What did they have in common?


I think they meant early 2000s.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 9:48 pm


I think they meant early 2000s.

I mean the 2000s in general, which include the early 00s..

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: #Infinity on 06/08/16 at 10:09 pm


I don't see why people see 2000 as a classic 2000s year. The first half of 2001 felt exactly the same as 1998 and 1999.


It's not a classic 2000s year, it's a core Y2K year, but it did produce a lot of culture that was  super important to the 2000s decade as a whole.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that the first half of 2001 was identical to 1998. 1998 was like the tail end of the classic 90s. It had a lot of elements that were similar to the few years that followed it, but it was still an unquestionably 90s year, regardless. Seinfeld was still one of the biggest shows on television during the first half, and there was no Family Guy, Sopranos, or Futurama yet. Pokemon arrived overseas in autumn, but it really wasn't until spring 1999 that the franchise overtook Power Rangers in popularity. Rap rock and nu metal technically existed, but they weren't yet huge trends like the would be beginning in early 1999. Bands like the Smashing Pumpkins, Garbage, Everclear, and Hole were still the dominant forces in rock. Although teen pop and shuffle-beat urban were definitely mainstream by 1998, they were still slightly overshadowed by retro, melodic, Gen-X-targeted ballads such as "My Heart Will Go On," "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing," and "I'm Your Angel;" not to mention No Limit and Bad Boy were still the biggest forces in hip hop (they would decline in 1999 and then abandon their classic 90s sound). Although the iMac and Windows 98 got released in late 1998, most people still owned Windows 95.

To me personally, 1998 is pretty much a direct continuation of most of 1997, with only the very beginnings of what could be described as "early 2000s" that hadn't already become popular the year before. I really don't understand why so many people place 1998 in the exact same category as 2001 while simultaneously excluding 1997. 1998 is late 90s, like 1997, but it's not on the cusp of being a predominantly 2000s-flavored year as 2000 and 2001 are.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Slim95 on 06/08/16 at 10:14 pm


It's not a classic 2000s year, it's a core Y2K year, but it did produce a lot of culture that was  super important to the 2000s decade as a whole.
I also strongly disagree with the notion that the first half of 2001 was identical to 1998. 1998 was like the tail end of the classic 90s. It had a lot of elements that were similar to the few years that followed it, but it was still an unquestionably 90s year, regardless. Seinfeld was still one of the biggest shows on television during the first half, and there was no Family Guy, Sopranos, or Futurama yet. Pokemon arrived overseas in autumn, but it really wasn't until spring 1999 that the franchise overtook Power Rangers in popularity. Rap rock and nu metal technically existed, but they weren't yet huge trends like the would be beginning in early 1999. Bands like the Smashing Pumpkins, Garbage, Everclear, and Hole were still the dominant forces in rock. Although teen pop and shuffle-beat urban were definitely mainstream by 1998, they were still slightly overshadowed by retro, melodic, Gen-X-targeted ballads such as "My Heart Will Go On," "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing," and "I'm Your Angel;" not to mention No Limit and Bad Boy were still the biggest forces in hip hop (they would decline in 1999 and then abandon their classic 90s sound). Although the iMac and Windows 98 got released in late 1998, most people still owned Windows 95.

To me personally, 1998 is pretty much a direct continuation of most of 1997, with only the very beginnings of what could be described as "early 2000s" that hadn't already become popular the year before. I really don't understand why so many people place 1998 in the exact same category as 2001 while simultaneously excluding 1997. 1998 is late 90s, like 1997, but it's not on the cusp of being a predominantly 2000s-flavored year as 2000 and 2001 are.

Yeah I guess 1999 was the start of the 2000s culture then. 1999 started the millennium culture and Y2K which I associate with the 2000s.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: ArcticFox on 06/08/16 at 11:07 pm


I don't see why ArcticFox makes people here mad. He seems like a chill guy to me. Did he post something political that was offensive or something?


Yes, because Infinity asked for an answer to a post I made on her thread "North Carolina hits a new low" (a thread which is guaranteed to start a flame war), which she got, she didn't like what I had to say, and now she's all pissy about it and playing the victim because she can't accept the fact that there are people out there with different views from her. Her response only showed that she's a manipulative instigator, because no matter what I posted or what thread I was in, she always tried to start an argument – even when I was minding my own business. I no longer respect her as a person and that was the last post I will ever make responding to her. Don't ever believe her if she says that I "came along and ruined everything" – she registered half a year after I did; and she came to me, not I to her. I don't care what she says about me.



I think I'm in the same camp with her(I was around 25 during that period though), 2010 imo was the best year for music this decade and I find most popular music today very boring. I haven't notice anything "innovative" since dubstep-into-pop brokethrough in 2011 and we haven't had a huge pop cultural overhaul since the '90s. Can you share what you think has been innovative and interesting that's been happening in pop music over the past three years?


You want something original? Here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AjD7nKiUQ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxgqpCdOKak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe1wtkkt9-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgFiWGIVP6s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KSOMA3QBU0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvTqknDobU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlcIKh6sBtc

And that's just a sample of the kind of music that had achieved a breakthrough in 2013. There's many more where that came from; not just in 2013, but every year afterwards into the present day. This is the most original, unfamiliar music the mainstream has seen since the mid '90s. Actually, comparing it to other decades proves that 2010's music is just as original as 20th century music ever was. The difference between 1980's "Whip It" to 1983's "The Safety Dance" is just as big, if not smaller, than the difference between 2010's "Animals" to 2013's "Radioactive".

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: #Infinity on 06/09/16 at 12:36 am


Yes, because Infinity asked for an answer to a post I made on her thread "North Carolina hits a new low" (a thread which is guaranteed to start a flame war), which she got, she didn't like what I had to say, and now she's all pissy about it and playing the victim because she can't accept the fact that there are people out there with different views from her. Her response only showed that she's a manipulative instigator, because no matter what I posted or what thread I was in, she always tried to start an argument – even when I was minding my own business. I no longer respect her as a person and that was the last post I will ever make responding to her. Don't ever believe her if she says that I "came along and ruined everything" – she registered half a year after I did; and she came to me, not I to her. I don't care what she says about me.


Don't even try and pretend that I was always the one starting the argument. You're the one who just decided to respond to me in this thread, saying it was fundamentally wrong and biased for me to like 2010 but not the mid-2010s.

Why the hell should I respect your values when they translate to downright, explicit discrimination against me just because of who I am? It's not like you're respecting my perspective over the matter. No, instead you're adamantly complaining that anyone who supports basic rights for transgender people is automatically putting cisgendered women in utter peril. I'm guessing you still think I should be obligated to go to the men's room just because I was biologically born male, even though by all general accounts I pass as female and would be really distracting if I went into the men's room.

Honestly, I could actually tolerate you if you personally supported the bathroom laws but respected those with different opinions, but instead you're being a complete, arrogant, condescending, callous, unsympathetic, heavy-handed jerk. Do you really expect me to just agree with you that women are gonna be raped just because ladies like myself use the proper restroom? Do you seriously think people aren't going to "have a cow" about your opinion, without any questions, when your perspective is basically equivalent to Jim Crow-era southern values towards African Americans?

If I'm a "manipulative instigator," as you say, that's because you have absolutely no grasp of reality. Coming to think about it, you've never had much of a grip of reality because of how dogmatic you are. You say 1997 is more like the early 90s than even 1998, you call the mid-2010s objectively better than the late 2000s and early 2010s, you say I'm always too negative about things even though you're mercilessly biased yourself against things like Y2K-era teen pop and early 2010s electropop, and now you think that I'm the one provoking all the drama here, that you're some perfect, goody two-shoes angel with the most respectable and mature values of anybody here, superior to everybody else? Well guess what, you're not above anybody or anything. You are the biggest bully I have ever met in my life, the most selfish, uncaring, hypocritical, dogmatic, and snobbish brute who I've ever had the dishonor of encountering. You think you're superior to everybody else on this board, not just me, but also anybody who disagrees with your opinions. You think you're the most educated and legitimate person to discuss popular culture compared to everyone. It's not just me who you've treated so condescendingly, it's really pretty much everyone. In retrospect, I really shouldn't be surprised that you're so bigoted against transgendered individuals.

Usually, I'm actually pretty diplomatic towards prejudiced people – I gave you quite a chance to clarify yourself so that I could understand when you called the bathroom law a good thing – but when you constantly deny the obvious, disregard human emotions, and have virtually no acceptance of any world view except for your own, then I have to draw the line and avoid you at all costs. A decent individual would have at least acknowledged and apologized for so obviously offending me, for reinforcing the exact bullcrap that has shaped my life's struggles in the first place. Instead, you're calling me a manipulative tranny who deserves no respect from anybody here, probably not caring even if I killed myself.

I'll be honest with you, I literally almost stopped visiting this board simply because I was so disgusted by your presence in the aftermath of your tirade against transgender bathroom rights. If it wasn't for the ignore function, I would have been gone for good. I honestly didn't think things could get any more sour between the two of us, but it appears I was proven wrong tonight.

I'm sorry, I could have spared you all of my more disdainful thoughts, but since you fudged me, called me a manipulative instigator, and told everybody not to respect me just because I won't accept your unashamed prejudice against me, I simply had no choice.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: mqg96 on 06/09/16 at 1:01 am


You want something original? Here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AjD7nKiUQ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxgqpCdOKak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe1wtkkt9-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgFiWGIVP6s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KSOMA3QBU0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvTqknDobU


It's only been 2 1/2 or 3 years, and I still enjoy all of the songs I have posted here! Sevyn Streeter ft. Chris Brown - It Won't Stop would be my favorite of all because it reminds me of walking around a coastal area or beach on vacation relaxed. I remember it being played almost everyday throughout my senior year.

Edit: well duh bro, that's the music video....

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 06/09/16 at 4:12 am

kid culture and mainstream culture wise: 2000
personal life wise: 2006

There ya go! ;)

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 06/09/16 at 4:14 am


I don't see why people see 2000 as a classic 2000s year. The first half of 2001 felt exactly the same as 1998 and 1999.

Long time no see!!!! :D

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 06/09/16 at 4:16 am


How long do you think the 90s aftermath would have lasted if not for 9/11?

I think it would have lasted until 2004/05.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 06/09/16 at 4:24 am


But I'm totally cool with saying 2008-2009 was the big transitional period.

This right here!

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: KatanaChick on 06/09/16 at 9:25 am

In my personal life? 2000 was the year I began high school, couldn't drive yet, and started to discover the joys and pitfalls of interacting online. 2006 was the year I started a job, made different friends, and had alot of what you'd call "boy drama."

Culturally 2000 was a more flashy party time feel and 2006 was more drab and at a stalemate, only with MySpace being a big deal and a new age slowly creeping in.

My observations. There you have it.  :-\\

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: 2001 on 06/09/16 at 11:09 am


Also, just to let some people know on here, just because I was a freshman in high school during the 2010-2011 school year instead of a senior didn't mean I didn't enjoy the pop culture at the time. I consider the 2010-2011 school year to be the peak of early 2010's culture and I enjoyed it. Starting high school and being in so much relief and joy to be out of that terrible  8-P middle school was great for me. My first year of cross country had a dreamy vibe, making a bunch of new friends in my grade who I still keep in contact with today, getting involved with my high school youth ministry for the first time, and talking to a lot of upperclassmen which was a huge part of my life. Summer 2011 right after freshman year ended was the best summer I had since 2006, because of getting my learner's permit, going to Ohio to meet my cousins, and going to New York City for the first time ever and we stayed for a whole week! I look back at 2010 as a huge transition year for me going from middle school to high school. I enjoyed the pop culture my freshman, sophomore, and senior years of high school. What I liked about my freshman year of high school (2010-2011) was how epic the electropop music and hip-hop music were at the time, and I remember hearing about the Kinect coming out for the XBOX 360 and Call of Duty Black Ops had came out and got real big at the time. The fashion was very colorful and bright. I actually enjoyed bright colored logo T-shirts or polo shirts at the time. Of course, I've said this many times before, but the 2012-2013 school year was my least favorite, not just pop culturally, but even for my personal life too and how difficult junior year was in general. It's hard to explain, but my sophomore year of high school was my favorite for the atmosphere and environment of the school, but my freshman and senior years were my favorites for the pop culture, like mirror images of each other in a good way.


Yes to everything in this post!  :D I wasn't even in school for 2010-11 and I loved it. We got Black and Yellow, Born This Way, Last Friday Night, (the Friday song... lol), Ke$ha, the rise of dubstep etc. There was just so much fun dance music.

The movies were great, the TV shows were epic, the fashion was bright and colourful, and personally I also liked the video games; Kinect, as you said, was really fun at parties despite the hate it gets. The DS and handhelds were still in their golden age, and there were tons of PC games coming out at the time, Starcraft, Skyrim, Minecraft, Portal, Civilization V, Deux Ex, Diablo etc.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: musicguy93 on 06/09/16 at 12:47 pm


kid culture and mainstream culture wise: 2000
personal life wise: 2006

There ya go! ;)


I actually enjoyed 2000 more in terms of kid culture and in terms of my personal life. However I do think I would have enjoyed my personal life in 2006 more if I weren't home-schooled. >:(

I still had my friends from elementary school at the time, but I still feel like I had lost a good chunk of my developmental and social life, that I will never get back (along with the second half of my high school life). My personal life wasn't terrible in 2006 (certainly better than it was from 2009-2013), but not necessarily a time I'm nostalgic for. When it comes to pop culture in 2006, it wasn't the most ideal time, but I still would take it over the mid 2010s anyday.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/09/16 at 12:55 pm


I actually enjoyed 2000 more in terms of kid culture and in terms of my personal life. However I do think I would have enjoyed my personal life in 2006 more if I weren't home-schooled. >:(

I still had my friends from elementary school at the time, but I still feel like I had lost a good chunk of my developmental and social life, that I will never get back (along with the second half of my high school life). My personal life wasn't terrible in 2006 (certainly better than it was from 2009-2013), but not necessarily a time I'm nostalgic for. When it comes to pop culture in 2006, it wasn't the most ideal time, but I still would take it over the mid 2010s anyday.


I felt the same in late 2011-2013. While 2006 was an okay year for my life, it certainly wasn't as good as 2004, 2005, and 2007 in my favorite years.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: bchris02 on 06/09/16 at 6:18 pm


I don't see why people see 2000 as a classic 2000s year. The first half of 2001 felt exactly the same as 1998 and 1999.


2000 was a hybrid year.  Musically, it was more '00s than '90s.  Politically and technologically it was closer to the '90s.  In terms of cinema, I would lean towards 2000 being '00s.  Movies from 2000s don't have that dated feel that movies from say 1995 do.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/09/16 at 6:46 pm


2000 was a hybrid year.  Musically, it was more '00s than '90s.  Politically and technologically it was closer to the '90s.  In terms of cinema, I would lean towards 2000 being '00s.  Movies from 2000s don't have that dated feel that movies from say 1995 do.


Movies from the early 2000s have an extremely dated feel. How the hell is it not dated compared to 1995? Especially when 2000 is just five years apart from 1995, where the video quality was still VHS. You did have DVDs, but barely anybody used DVDs back in 2000.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 06/09/16 at 9:20 pm


There havent been any dramatic changes since '00 except of course for the '00 election and 9/11  i guess the main thing is that internet use has grown tremendously in the last 6 years


I can't believe I said this back in 2006 because now I feel like there is a huge gap between then and 2000. I guess a decade can really change your perspective on things.

Looking back at it from 2016, it's actually kind of amazing how much changed from 2000 to 2006. The world of 2000 was still largely one of dial-up internet, VHS tapes, Windows 98, pay-phones, and primative 2D gaming. It was a world which, in many ways, felt alot "bigger" than today. Finding out information on the internet wasn't nearly as easy, you couldn't just pick up a cell phone and call someone whenever you needed to, and you weren't in near-constant contact with friends and family through Twitter and Facebook.

On the flip side, I would say that 2006 is the first year that, technologically speaking, feels closer to today than it does to the '90s. 2006 was a year that had YouTube, MySpace, HD gaming consoles, widespread MP3 use, and cell phone over-saturation, That's not to say that '06 doesn't feel dated ten years later. It does in some ways, but 2000 truly feels like a "different world".

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: mqg96 on 06/09/16 at 9:23 pm


I can't believe I said this back in 2006 because now I feel like there is a huge gap between then and 2000. I guess a decade can really change your perspective on things.

Looking back at it from 2016, it's actually kind of amazing how much changed from 2000 to 2006. The world of 2000 was still largely one of dial-up internet, VHS tapes, Windows 98, pay-phones, and primative 2D gaming. It was a world which, in many ways, felt alot "bigger" than today. Finding out information on the internet wasn't nearly as easy, you couldn't just pick up a cell phone and call someone whenever you needed to, and you weren't in near-constant contact with friends and family through Twitter and Facebook.

On the flip side, I would say that 2006 is the first year that, technologically speaking, feels closer to today than it does to the '90s. 2006 was a year that had YouTube, MySpace, HD gaming consoles, widespread MP3 use, and cell phone over-saturation, That's not to say that '06 doesn't feel dated ten years later. It does in some ways, but 2000 truly feels like a "different world".


I just realized when you made that post it was only your 3rd day on this site  :o

and you registered the day before my 10th birthday too!

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 06/09/16 at 9:38 pm


I just realized when you made that post it was only your 3rd day on this site  :o


Good eye. I didn't even notice that myself. I'd actually been visiting this site since 2005, but didn't officially register until '06. Still coincidental that this was one of my first posts, though. :o


and you registered the day before my 10th birthday too!


Another odd coincidence, but one that kinda makes me feel old. ;D

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: JordanK1982 on 06/09/16 at 10:48 pm

2006 was so boring, I dunno why you guys like it so much. I also don't know why some of you are spitting upon the mighty year 2000 by calling it "classic 2000s". Disgusting. >:(

(;D)

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/10/16 at 8:00 am


2006 was so boring, I dunno why you guys like it so much. I also don't know why some of you are spitting upon the mighty year 2000 by calling it "classic 2000s". Disgusting. >:(

(;D)


2006 was just like 2005 for me.

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: JordanK1982 on 06/10/16 at 10:17 am


2006 was just like 2005 for me.


So... More boring? :P

Subject: Re: 2000 vs. 2006

Written By: Baltimoreian on 06/10/16 at 1:53 pm


So... More boring? :P


Kind of, if you were into pop-rock.

Check for new replies or respond here...