Let's get back to the topic of 2020.... It's a lot more interesting than genealogy.

You must be a Millennial. Millennials ignorantly believe the 90s did not end until September 11th because their kid culture was pretty much gone shortly after September 11th. The 90s ended a few years before 2001 nonetheless.

You said that ‘96 borns had more in common with early 90s babies than 00s babies. That is far from true.

Lastly, how can 1975 and 1976 be core Xers when people born from 1969 to 1974 are late Xers? Late Xers were becoming teenagers all throughout the 1980s. I know this because I looked up to them, literally and figuratively, in the 80s and 90s.

People born in 1986 are XYers because they were 3 years old in 1989 (the last year that kid culture pandered to Xennials exclusively). By 1990, ‘86 borns had their childhood cultural identity already.


Wait I'm confused.... If you're saying that those born in 86' are the last to have be considered 'Xennials' because they were 3 in 99', why are you then also saying 96' borns aren't 'Millennials' nor '90s kids' when they were the same exact age 86ers were, just at the tail end of the 90s? Something's not making sense with your logic. Your views are not considered mainstream, but even then I think people wouldn't be as negative towards if at the very least there was some sort of logic following your (admittedly, outlandish) views on generations.


Let's get back to the topic of 2020.... It's a lot more interesting than genealogy.


Yeah I agree. These generationology topics have been becoming cancer recently.

You must be a Millennial. Millennials ignorantly believe the 90s did not end until September 11th because their kid culture was pretty much gone shortly after September 11th. The 90s ended a few years before 2001 nonetheless.

You said that ‘96 borns had more in common with early 90s babies than 00s babies. That is far from true.

Lastly, how can 1975 and 1976 be core Xers when people born from 1969 to 1974 are late Xers? Late Xers were becoming teenagers all throughout the 1980s. I know this because I looked up to them, literally and figuratively, in the 80s and 90s.

People born in 1986 are XYers because they were 3 years old in 1989 (the last year that kid culture pandered to Xennials exclusively). By 1990, ‘86 borns had their childhood cultural identity already.


You must have Gen X starting around the early 1960s. To me Gen X starts in 1965 and ends around 1982 or 1983. People born from 1969-1974 are definitely not late Gen Xers,but likely core Gen X or even in the case of born in 1969-1971,early Gen X. Late Gen Xers were born between 1977 and 1982 or 1983 with Xennenial being from 1979 or 1980-1985. Pretty much all 70s babies have been fully accepted as Gen X at this point.

Also while some 2000s culture did exist in the year 2001,early/mid 2001 still "had that 90s feel" to it. Thing really haven't changed much until 9/11. People born in 1996 can definitely relate more to early 90s babies than they can relate to 2000s babies or even late 90s babies.After all,there's only a 3 year age difference between the youngest of early 90s babies and 1996 babies,while there's a 4 year age difference 1996 babies and the oldest of 2000s babies.Plus people born in 1996 had childhood and teenage experiences that's a lot closer to early 90s babies than 2000s babies. People born in 1996 can definitely remember things like VHS when they were still relevant,Dial up/Web 1.0,spent a large portion of their childhood before YouTube came  out and before Modern Social Media became popular,spent all of their childhood in the CRT TV era,they spent their childhood years during the Powerhouse Era of Cartoon Network/Klasky Csupo era of Nickelodeon,CD Players, and even have vivid memories of the Y2K Era/a pre 9/11 world.

They were electropop teens,spent all of their High School before Donald Trump got popular.They also used ether Myspace and Facebook as teens. Does those experience sound Gen Z to you? Most people have accepted people born in 1996 as millennials at this point,and rightly so.

Wait I'm confused.... If you're saying that those born in 86' are the last to have be considered 'Xennials' because they were 3 in 99', why are you then also saying 96' borns aren't 'Millennials' nor '90s kids' when they were the same exact age 86ers were, just at the tail end of the 90s? Something's not making sense with your logic. Your views are not considered mainstream, but even then I think people wouldn't be as negative towards if at the very least there was some sort of logic following your (admittedly, outlandish) views on generations.

Yeah I agree. These generationology topics have been becoming cancer recently.


I said ‘86 borns were 3 years old in 1989. You’re twisting my words around. You either don’t want to hear me or you were not paying attention to me.

You must have Gen X starting around the early 1960s. To me Gen X starts in 1965 and ends around 1982 or 1983. People born from 1969-1974 are definitely not late Gen Xers,but likely core Gen X or even in the case of born in 1969-1971,early Gen X. Late Gen Xers were born between 1977 and 1982 or 1983 with Xennenial being from 1979 or 1980-1985. Pretty much all 70s babies have been fully accepted as Gen X at this point.

Also while some 2000s culture did exist in the year 2001,early/mid 2001 still "had that 90s feel" to it. Thing really haven't changed much until 9/11. People born in 1996 can definitely relate more to early 90s babies than they can relate to 2000s babies or even late 90s babies.After all,there's only a 3 year age difference between the youngest of early 90s babies and 1996 babies,while there's a 4 year age difference 1996 babies and the oldest of 2000s babies.Plus people born in 1996 had childhood and teenage experiences that's a lot closer to early 90s babies than 2000s babies. People born in 1996 can definitely remember things like VHS when they were still relevant,Dial up/Web 1.0,spent a large portion of their childhood before YouTube came  out and before Modern Social Media became popular,spent all of their childhood in the CRT TV era,they spent their childhood years during the Powerhouse Era of Cartoon Network/Klasky Csupo era of Nickelodeon,CD Players, and even have vivid memories of the Y2K Era/a pre 9/11 world.

They were electropop teens,spent all of their High School before Donald Trump got popular.They also used ether Myspace and Facebook as teens. Does those experience sound Gen Z to you? Most people have accepted people born in 1996 as millennials at this point,and rightly so.


How well do you know early 60s babies?

Your point of view does not agree with science and mathematics.

The early 2000s felt like the 90s to you because Millennial kid culture was still around for the last time.

Early Gen Zers were teens before the 2000s were over, but the core and late Zers became teens in the 2010s. The cores and lates are Electropop teens. Millennials are 1987 to 1995 borns. It stops at ‘95 because their childhoods took place before the “Spongebob” days.

Let's get back to the topic of 2020.... It's a lot more interesting than genealogy.


Do you think 2020 will be worst than 2019 or are you optimistic for 2020?

Wait I'm confused.... If you're saying that those born in 86' are the last to have be considered 'Xennials' because they were 3 in 99', why are you then also saying 96' borns aren't 'Millennials' nor '90s kids' when they were the same exact age 86ers were, just at the tail end of the 90s? Something's not making sense with your logic. Your views are not considered mainstream, but even then I think people wouldn't be as negative towards if at the very least there was some sort of logic following your (admittedly, outlandish) views on generations.

Yeah I agree. These generationology topics have been becoming cancer recently.


Yeah, let's go back to decadeology, lol (only joking). But I do forsee a throwback to 2004 type of vibe in 2020, especially with music. Even now I'm hearing the Usher song being played a lot, and some of the music sampling songs from around that time.

Yeah, let's go back to decadeology, lol (only joking). But I do forsee a throwback to 2004 type of vibe in 2020, especially with music. Even now I'm hearing the Usher song being played a lot, and some of the music sampling songs from around that time.


x5c2iRHlAHA

Wait I'm confused.... If you're saying that those born in 86' are the last to have be considered 'Xennials' because they were 3 in 99', why are you then also saying 96' borns aren't 'Millennials' nor '90s kids' when they were the same exact age 86ers were, just at the tail end of the 90s? Something's not making sense with your logic. Your views are not considered mainstream, but even then I think people wouldn't be as negative towards if at the very least there was some sort of logic following your (admittedly, outlandish) views on generations.

Yeah I agree. These generationology topics have been becoming cancer recently.


I realize you made a typo in your statement now.

“Spongebob Squarepants” is a 2000s cartoon. 1999 is only thought of as a 90s year because it completes the 1990s numerically. The kid culture of 1999 was for Zers alone. The oldest Millennials (born in the late 80s) in 1999 were pre-teens. Early and core Millennials might have still been doing in 1999 what they were doing first in 1996, 1997, or 1998, but the new culture for children was made with children (Zers and a few late Millennials) in mind.

Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen were born in 1986. Would you honestly think of them as Millennials and not Xennials?!  :-\\

‘86 borns love the 80s and early 90s (because their childhood started in the 80s), whereas ‘87 to ‘95 borns love the 90s because large and small chunks of their childhood culture was new in the 1990s.

Xennials are more down to earth in this cynical world than Millennials (like late Xers are), but they are almost as tech savvy as Millennials are. I hope that helps you to understand my micro-generation a little better.

Do you think 2020 will be worst than 2019 or are you optimistic for 2020?

I am optimistic for 2020 I have to be.

I am optimistic for 2020 I have to be.


I think mid 00s babies will hate 2020 when they’re living in it. People usually hate their teenage to adult years.

Do you think 2014 will be slightly dated in 2020?

Ok, People. This thread is about 2020-not about who falls into what generation. If you insist on talking about generations (which the subject has been argued ad nauseam) this thread will be locked!


Cat

Ok, People. This thread is about 2020-not about who falls into what generation. If you insist on talking about generations (which the subject has been argued ad nauseam) this thread will be locked!


Cat


What do you picture 2020 looking like? Will there be more robots everywhere in the US in 2020 or same as now?

x5c2iRHlAHA


That's the song I was thinking of! It sampled the 2004 song by Petey Pablo.

I think mid 00s babies will hate 2020 when they’re living in it. People usually hate their teenage to adult years.

Do you think 2014 will be slightly dated in 2020?

Yes I think it's already slightly dated. 2014 is the last year that is slightly dated.

I realize you made a typo in your statement now.

“Spongebob Squarepants” is a 2000s cartoon. 1999 is only thought of as a 90s year because it completes the 1990s numerically. The kid culture of 1999 was for Zers alone. The oldest Millennials (born in the late 80s) in 1999 were pre-teens. Early and core Millennials might have still been doing in 1999 what they were doing first in 1996, 1997, or 1998, but the new culture for children was made with children (Zers and a few late Millennials) in mind.

Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen were born in 1986. Would you honestly think of them as Millennials and not Xennials?!  :-\\

‘86 borns love the 80s and early 90s (because their childhood started in the 80s), whereas ‘87 to ‘95 borns love the 90s because large and small chunks of their childhood culture was new in the 1990s.

Xennials are more down to earth in this cynical world than Millennials (like late Xers are), but they are almost as tech savvy as Millennials are. I hope that helps you to understand my micro-generation a little better.


1989 is as much ‘1980s’ culturally as 1999 is ‘1990s’ culturally. For instance, you cite the example of Spongebob (a definitively 2000s Cartoon) as a reason why 1999 was more 2000 culturally. Well then, I can make the same exact claim of The Simpson’s being an example of 1990s culture coming in strong in the 80s, as you had the Tracey Ulman shorts in 1987-1989, and the show itself debuting in 1989. And don’t tell me with a straight face that The Simpson’s is not as culturally significant as Spongebob. Do you see the error of your logic? You’re just making up the rule that “1999 wasn’t really the ‘1990s’ anyway” just so you can (for some weird reason/obsession) be able to leave out 96’ babies from being considered Millennials.

But even if you did include 96’ers as Millennials using that logic (which depending on the day of the week you do, and then you magically just call 97era Zers because they turned 3 in 00’, but I digress), the whole point is that what does being 3 in a point of a certain decade have anything to do with one’s entirechildhood experience in a respective decade? I agree that 87ers (and most late 80s babies for that manner) do happen to have a cultural affinity to the 90s since that was the decade they grew up in, but how in the hell is a 95er going to have that same cultural affinity when they only spent two years of their childhood in the 90s (also only being in early childhood might I add)?

I think a better marker is where one was between the ages of 7.5-8, aka the ‘peak’ of one’s childhood (ages 3.5-12). Where one spent most of their childhood (especially with ages 7-8 being the ‘peak’ as a good indicator) is likely the era/decade (whatever) that person is going to have nostalgia in.

But why am I even explaining this basic concept to you, it’s simply just falling on deaf years. I’ve had enough entertaining your trolling for tonight ::).

1989 is as much ‘1980s’ culturally as 1999 is ‘1990s’ culturally.

Yes and in my personal opinion I don't think 1999 was '90s culturally at all and I don't think 2009 was 2000s culturally at all. But 1989 was still very much '80s culturally, just like 2019 is still very much 2010s culturally still.

1989 is as much ‘1980s’ culturally as 1999 is ‘1990s’ culturally. For instance, you cite the example of Spongebob (a definitively 2000s Cartoon) as a reason why 1999 was more 2000 culturally. Well then, I can make the same exact claim of The Simpson’s being an example of 1990s culture coming in strong in the 80s, as you had the Tracey Ulman shorts in 1987-1989, and the show itself debuting in 1989. And don’t tell me with a straight face that The Simpson’s is not as culturally significant as Spongebob. Do you see the error of your logic? You’re just making up the rule that “1999 wasn’t really the ‘1990s’ anyway” just so you can (for some weird reason/obsession) be able to leave out 96’ babies from being considered Millennials.

But even if you did include 96’ers as Millennials using that logic (which depending on the day of the week you do, and then you magically just call 97era Zers because they turned 3 in 00’, but I digress), the whole point is that what does being 3 in a point of a certain decade have anything to do with one’s entirechildhood experience in a respective decade? I agree that 87ers (and most late 80s babies for that manner) do happen to have a cultural affinity to the 90s since that was the decade they grew up in, but how in the hell is a 95er going to have that same cultural affinity when they only spent two years of their childhood in the 90s (also only being in early childhood might I add)?

I think a better marker is where one was between the ages of 7.5-8, aka the ‘peak’ of one’s childhood (ages 3.5-12). Where one spent most of their childhood (especially with ages 7-8 being the ‘peak’ as a good indicator) is likely the era/decade (whatever) that person is going to have nostalgia in.

But why am I even explaining this basic concept to you, it’s simply just falling on deaf years. I’ve had enough entertaining your trolling for tonight ::).


I’m actually not trolling.

“Spongebob” is in a different category from “The Simpsons”. “Spongebob Squarepants” was a Nickelodeon cartoon meant to grab late Millennials and early Zers. “The Simpsons”, on the other hand, was a Sunday prime-time cartoon when it first aired. The six TV ratings did not exist while the first run of  “The Simpsons” season one was going on. “The Simpsons” was meant to grab Boomers, Joneses, and early Xers. Core and late Xers along with XYers primarily purchased “The Simpsons” merchandise when it first came out in the earliest months of 1990.

Nobody in 1989 thought of “The Simpsons Christmas Special” as an example of 1990s culture coming in strong in the 80s. It was a stand alone Christmas special like the Garfield Christmas specials that were on CBS before then. December of 1989 was an odd time for a Christmas special featuring some random ugly cartoon drawings that looked as if they leaped off loose leaf paper. Boomers, Joneses, early Xers and maybe some core to late Xers knew the Simpsons from “The Tracey Ullman Show” that was on during FOX’s launch day, but not many. The first episode that was shown in the 90s was the first ever episode of the series, not “The Simpsons Christmas Special”. No one then even knew of the ties that “The Simpson’s Christmas Special” would have with the series that was being promoted during the commercial break of the first showing to “The Simpsons Christmas Special”.

“Spongebob” and “The Simpsons” are both important equally to pop culture fanatics. I hate when people say “The Simpsons” and “Spongebob” are both 90s cartoons. Grouping pop culture from one era to another that was worlds apart due to the numerical order of years is a lazy thing to do. “Spongebob” is Zer kid culture in the way that “Rugrats” was Yer kid culture. Nicktoons were advertised heavily in 1999 on Nickelodeon due to the success of “Rugrats” and “Ren and Stimpy” in the 90s. “Spongebob” was the last Nicktoon to find a large audience. It was all downhill for people who liked watching original Nickelodeon cartoons after “Spongebob”.

On the subject of ‘peak childhoods’, you have an interesting philosophy that I have never heard of before. People stop being infants from when they are 2 and half years old to 3 years old. 7 to 8 years old may be when a child has a better understanding of the time they are living in, but their childhood cultural identity is first formed somewhere from when they are 2 and a half to 3 years old.

I have never heard an ‘86 born refer to “Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers” and “Animaniacs” as culture that they were nostalgic for. Mid 80s babies were getting up there in age in the 1990s. “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and “Tim Burton’s Batman” seems to be all of the nostalgia that the latter mid 80s babies pine for. Bottom line, anyone born from 1975 and before 1987 will agree that the best things from the 90s were what was around from the 1980s still. It’s mainly Millennials that love what came out of the 1990s and they’re the only ones.  :o

Yes and in my personal opinion I don't think 1999 was '90s culturally at all and I don't think 2009 was 2000s culturally at all. But 1989 was still very much '80s culturally, just like 2019 is still very much 2010s culturally still.


2009 was culturally 2000s because a lot of the entertainment was for solely Millennials and Zers still. “UFC” is a late Zers’ “WWF”, Millennials were proud to have voted in Barack Obama, and Xers along with XYers (both parent groups of the ‘00s) were happy to see Ed ‘O Neil (aka Al Bundy) on prime time again in “Modern Family”.

The 2000s did end culturally until 2011 when Instagram was big with Yers and Zers and “Minecraft” was introduced for late Zers and early Alphas.

1989 is as much ‘1980s’ culturally as 1999 is ‘1990s’ culturally. For instance, you cite the example of Spongebob (a definitively 2000s Cartoon) as a reason why 1999 was more 2000 culturally. Well then, I can make the same exact claim of The Simpson’s being an example of 1990s culture coming in strong in the 80s, as you had the Tracey Ulman shorts in 1987-1989, and the show itself debuting in 1989. And don’t tell me with a straight face that The Simpson’s is not as culturally significant as Spongebob. Do you see the error of your logic? You’re just making up the rule that “1999 wasn’t really the ‘1990s’ anyway” just so you can (for some weird reason/obsession) be able to leave out 96’ babies from being considered Millennials.

But even if you did include 96’ers as Millennials using that logic (which depending on the day of the week you do, and then you magically just call 97era Zers because they turned 3 in 00’, but I digress), the whole point is that what does being 3 in a point of a certain decade have anything to do with one’s entirechildhood experience in a respective decade? I agree that 87ers (and most late 80s babies for that manner) do happen to have a cultural affinity to the 90s since that was the decade they grew up in, but how in the hell is a 95er going to have that same cultural affinity when they only spent two years of their childhood in the 90s (also only being in early childhood might I add)?

I think a better marker is where one was between the ages of 7.5-8, aka the ‘peak’ of one’s childhood (ages 3.5-12). Where one spent most of their childhood (especially with ages 7-8 being the ‘peak’ as a good indicator) is likely the era/decade (whatever) that person is going to have nostalgia in.

But why am I even explaining this basic concept to you, it’s simply just falling on deaf years. I’ve had enough entertaining your trolling for tonight ::).


It was stupid of FOX to put “The Simpsons Christmas Special” on that night in December of 1989.

“The Simpsons” series was not a part of any FOX line up before “The Simpson’s Christmas Special” aired.

No one, including some people who watched “The Tracey Ullman Show”, knew of who the Simpsons were. “The Simpsons Christmas Special” being on before the Christmas themed “Married with Children” episode was random.  :o

In some circles “The Simpsons” are thought of as an 1989 show and in others, “The Simpsons” are a 1990 show. The show creator, Matt Groening, was trying to get the first season of “The Simpsons” to be a fall season premiere before “The Simpson’s Christmas Special” was a go for FOX in 1989. Obviously, Matt Groening did not succeed at having “The Simpsons” be a new show on FOX in late 1989.

From my viewpoint, Matt Groening should have waited until after the first regular episodes of season 1 were shown to include “The Simpsons Christmas Special”. “The Simpsons Christmas Special” could have been on air in July of 1990 or in December of 1990 as part of season 2 with a new narration.

Now Simpsons fans are confused about dates when “The Simpsons Christmas Special” was originally not intended to be anything other than a stand alone Christmas special for the people who have been with FOX since 1987.

“The Simpsons Christmas Special” was renamed to “Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire” in 1994 for when the series was in syndication on FOX affiliates in the evenings. Today, some people (like yourself) solemnly swear that “The Simpsons Christmas Special” is ‘where it all began’, when that is clearly not the case.

“The Simpsons Christmas Special” grabbed my attention better than all of the other season 1 episodes that came after it, but it originally had no ties to the then new upcoming “Simpsons” show in 1989. In other words, “The Simpson’s Christmas Special” was like the 1988 Butterfinger commercial with Millhouse in it. 100% random.

Also, “The Simpsons Christmas Special” did not pull in viewers the way the actual series did in early 1990. Most Americans in the early 90s did not even know of “The Simpsons Christmas Special” until it was released on home video in 1991. :o

I think FOX might have added “The Simpsons Christmas Special” to one or a few of their late December time slots in 1990, but I don’t remember. FOX had a lot going on in the early 90s. What a channel to watch back then! FOX was the early 90s, when you think about it! The Arsenio Hall Show was on some FOX affiliates late at night as well! FOX was the network to watch from 1990 to 1992 and a little bit of 1993. Unfortunately, FOX morphed into how it is today from the rest of 1993 to the end of the 90s.  :\'(

I miss late 80s and early 90s FOX. There will not ever be another FOX station like there was in those years!

Ok... @Retrolover I was going to be nice and just let you off the hook, but you're weird ass obsessions left me no choice. This is my last response on this thread in relation to generations (in which I am just as perplexed of this coming up as anybody else :o). Let me address each of your points, one by one.


I’m actually not trolling.


I, and most people on this forum beg to differ, but nonetheless.


Spongebob” is in a different category from “The Simpsons”. “Spongebob Squarepants” was a Nickelodeon cartoon meant to grab late Millennials and early Zers. “The Simpsons”, on the other hand, was a Sunday prime-time cartoon when it first aired. The six TV ratings did not exist while the first run of  “The Simpsons” season one was going on. “The Simpsons” was meant to grab Boomers, Joneses, and early Xers. Core and late Xers along with XYers primarily purchased “The Simpsons” merchandise when it first came out in the earliest months of 1990.

Ok so even while you are trying to defend your claim, you contradict yourself. You claim (later on, something that we both agree on) that The Simpsons and Spongebob are cultural icons within animation, arguably in culture at large. You claim that when Spongebob was first on the air in Mid 1999 (without evidence btw, but I digress) that the show was marketed exclusively towards Late Millennials and Early Zers. The Simpsons being marketed towards Boomers, Xers, and X/Yers. First of all, the first months of 1990, would've meant that, based on your definition, some of the earliest Millennials (87' borns) were already technically kids and to be of main influence of pop culture. Therefor, you exclude them from being able to partake in the original run of The Simpsons during its first season in 1989-1990, when you just said a post ago that once someone is 3 years of age they are now to be expected to be influenced by the kid culture being marketed to.

So if we're following that logic, The Simpsons could've been marketed to Boomers, Xers, 'Xellenials', and even some of the first Millennials as well. Why are you comfortable in not saying that "The Simpsons was a FOX Cartoon meant to grab Baby Boomers, Xers, Xellenials, and early Millennials", but you're completely comfortable in saying "Spongebob Squarepants was a Nickelodeon cartoon meant to grab late Millennials and early Zers"?

Nobody in 1989 thought of “The Simpsons Christmas Special” as an example of 1990s culture coming in strong in the 80s. It was a stand alone Christmas special like the Garfield Christmas specials that were on CBS before then. December of 1989 was an odd time for a Christmas special featuring some random ugly cartoon drawings that looked as if they leaped off loose leaf paper. Boomers, Joneses, early Xers and maybe some core to late Xers knew the Simpsons from “The Tracey Ullman Show” that was on during FOX’s launch day, but not many. The first episode that was shown in the 90s was the first ever episode of the series, not “The Simpsons Christmas Special”. No one then even knew of the ties that “The Simpson’s Christmas Special” would have with the series that was being promoted during the commercial break of the first showing to “The Simpsons Christmas Special”.

Ok, I'll give you partial credit on that. But the fact still remains, The Simpsons (be it the Tracey Ulman Shorts from 87'-89' and the Christmas special that aired in 89') is as much culturally in tune with the 1980s as Spongebob was for the 1990s (the first season taking place entirely in 1999). Despite The Simspons airing in the VERY late 80s, nobody associates The Simpsons with 1980s kid culture. However, that doesn't negate the fact that despite a big show like The Simpsons debuting in 89', the year still had a lot of 80s elements in kid culture ('TMNTmania', NES, The Real Ghost Busters, etc.). In the same way, 99' had Spongebob, a show that would define the 2000s, but also had a lot of 90s elements in kid culture ('Pokemania', N64, Hey Arnold, etc.).


“Spongebob” and “The Simpsons” are both important equally to pop culture fanatics.


Once again, as I eluded to above, I'm glad we both agree.

I hate when people say “The Simpsons” and “Spongebob” are both 90s cartoons. Grouping pop culture from one era to another that was worlds apart due to the numerical order of years is a lazy thing to do.

Ok, when did I (or anybody on here or in real life) ever made the claim that both The Simpsons and Spongebob are from the same era? In the sense that the peak in quality for the respective shows (so 1991-1997 for The Simpsons and 1999-2004 for Spongebob) were part of the same era? They both had happen to air in the 90s, but one show was culturally engrained in what was the 90s, while the other one more in the 00s. When both of these shows first coming onto air is irrelevant to this conversation.

Secondly, I find it interesting that now all of a sudden you are concerned about grouping "All numerical 90s years as the same", when you're the same person that is insistent in separating 95' and 96' babies (once again, for some weird obsession) because 95ers had happen to be 3 in 98'.... ??? Idk. But what's weirder is that you just said moments ago that

.......“The Simpsons” merchandise when it first came out in the earliest months of 1990.
In which I correctly noted that those born in 87' were already 3/in childhood, so by your logic they would also be marketed towards Simpsons merchandise in the same way you felt that 96ers, being among the first Zers in your view, were being equally marketed to as Late Millenials when Spongebob debuted in 99', and now all of a sudden you're concerned with the 90s being generalized as 'the same'. So what you're logic is saying is that, 1990-1998 was NOT "worlds apart", but 1990-1999, or I dare say it, 1998-1999, NO NO NO, those were two completely different eras. That doesn't make any sense, what so ever.

I wouldn't be as annoyed if you simply just stuck to your original rhetoric about 98' "being the last year that was culturally more 90s than 00s", but now that notion has been thrown out the window because you now concede that even if 98' was still culturally 90s, that (in your own words) "Grouping pop culture from one era to another that was worlds apart due to the numerical order of years is a lazy thing to do."

So simple question I have for you, is it lazy for me to assume that your argumentation for why Millennials are those born from 87'-95' because they all happen to be 3 from 1990-1998, when you just admitted that to make the assumption that the culture of the 90s was the same in two (possibly three) sections is deemed 'lazy', is also, well quite frankly, lazy? If you're just going off your opinion that 98' was slightly more 90s influenced than 00s influenced in comparison to 99', wouldn't the mere fact that 98' is much more closer in relation to 99' be evidence that an 95er's childhood experience was "world apart" to someone born in 87'? Or are you just conveniently brushing that aside?

Genuinely curious.


On the subject of ‘peak childhoods’, you have an interesting philosophy that I have never heard of before. People stop being infants from when they are 2 and half years old to 3 years old. 7 to 8 years old may be when a child has a better understanding of the time they are living in, but their childhood cultural identity is first formed somewhere from when they are 2 and a half to 3 years old.

It's not just an interesting philosophy. You see, my theory can actually be backed up by psychology and physiology:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Child_development_stages.svg/2560px-Child_development_stages.svg.png

As you can see in this graph, citing the Macmillan Dictionary for Students Macmillan, Pan Ltd. (1981), page 173. Retrieved 2010-7-15., toddlerhood begins at around 12 months and ends at around age 3. The 'pre schooler' range begins at around age 2 and lasts to about age 6. Overarching these two age ranges is a wide span known as 'Play Age', from 12 months of age to about age 8 (right before girls begin to start puberty, typically at age 9). 'Primary school' age begins at age 5 and ends at about age 11. At around age 9, girls start going through puberty, and both sexes begin the 'preadolescence' phase/or their 'tween' years as they start to transition smoothly out of childhood and into teenagedhood (however, they are in their early 'youthhood' at this point). Nicely in between is ages 7 & 8, which are both right before the start of the preadolescence phase and right after the end of the pre schooler phase. As well, they are both in the mathematic mid point of what is primary school age, and are the last two years where they are technically part of the 'play age'.

This suggests that based on scientific research on the manner, we should base childhood on what equally surrounds ages 7 & 8, add 4 years on either side and you get ages 3 & 12 respectively. Personally though, I begin it more at around age 3.5, because constant memories are not developed until around that time period. After your 12th birthday, and especially when one is 12.5 years of age, I don't personally really see that as one's childhood anymore (even accounting for late childhood), not just because of my personal opinion, but also based on extensive research that suggests that puberty begins to take hold more at this point in time.

Please try and discard ages 7.5-8 as 'peak' childhood as merely 'a neat philosophy'. Go ahead, I'll wait.


I have never heard an ‘86 born refer to “Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers” and “Animaniacs” as culture that they were nostalgic for. Mid 80s babies were getting up there in age in the 1990s. “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and “Tim Burton’s Batman” seems to be all of the nostalgia that the latter mid 80s babies pine for. Bottom line, anyone born from 1975 and before 1987 will agree that the best things from the 90s were what was around from the 1980s still. It’s mainly Millennials that love what came out of the 1990s and they’re the only ones.  :o

Ok, now this is just a bunch of pure 'No True Scottsman' fallacies. Are you seriously telling me that you have never heard an 86' born have affinity to the Might Morphin Power Rangers? Guess whom apparently was a huge MMPR nut back in the mid 90s? My 1985 born sister. Dude, just give up ;D.

Also, I find it funny how you're being so desperate to make the generation Millennials so small (merely just 8 years), but yet you're willing to make the supposed cusp generation of X and Millennials (say it with me, 'Xennials) as 11 years long. I thought that 85' & 86' borns were Xennials because they remember the 80s? I thought that 95' & (oh my bad, was about to say 96' borns, oopsies ;D) as Millennials because they remember the 90s? So.... we're just going to ignore the fact that 75ers and 76ers both remember 78' & or 79' respectively, which would technically make them true, unapologetic, and unadulterated Gen Xers by your own logic from before, right? Or am I missing something?


It was stupid of FOX to put “The Simpsons Christmas Special” on that night in December of 1989.

“The Simpsons” series was not a part of any FOX line up before “The Simpson’s Christmas Special” aired.

No one, including some people who watched “The Tracey Ullman Show”, knew of who the Simpsons were. “The Simpsons Christmas Special” being on before the Christmas themed “Married with Children” episode was random.  :o

In some circles “The Simpsons” are thought of as an 1989 show and in others, “The Simpsons” are a 1990 show. The show creator, Matt Groening, was trying to get the first season of “The Simpsons” to be a fall season premiere before “The Simpson’s Christmas Special” was a go for FOX in 1989. Obviously, Matt Groening succeed at having “The Simpsons” be a new show on FOX in late 1989.

From my viewpoint, Matt Groening should have waited until after the first regular episodes of season 1 were shown to include “The Simpsons Christmas Special”. “The Simpsons Christmas Special” could have been on air in July of 1990 or in December of 1990 as part of season 2 with a new narration.

Now Simpsons fans are confused about dates when “The Simpsons Christmas Special” was originally not intended to be anything other than a stand alone Christmas special for the people who have been with FOX since 1987.

“The Simpsons Christmas Special” was renamed to “Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire” in 1994 for when the series was in syndication on FOX affiliates in the evenings. Now some people (like yourself) solemnly swear that “The Simpsons Christmas Special” is ‘where it all began’ when that is clearly not the case.

“The Simpsons Christmas Special” grabbed my attention better than all of the other season 1 episodes that came after it, but it originally had no ties to “The Simpsons” show in 1989. In other words, “The Simpson’s Christmas Special” was like the 1988 Butterfinger commercial with Millhouse in it.

Also, “The Simpsons Christmas Special” did not pull in viewers the way the actual series did in early 1990. Most Americans in the early 90s did not even know of “The Simpsons Christmas Special” until it was released on home video in 1991. :o

I think FOX might have added “The Simpsons Christmas Special” to one or a few of their late December time slots in 1990, but I don’t remember. FOX had a lot going on in the early 90s. What a channel to watch back then! FOX was the early 90s, when you think about it! The Arsenio Hall Show was on some FOX affiliates late at night as well! FOX was the network to watch from 1990 to 1992 and a little bit of 1993. Unfortunately, FOX morphed into how it is today from the rest of 1993 to the end of the 90s.  :\'(

I miss late 80s and early 90s FOX. There will not ever be another FOX station like there was in those years!


GREAT! More obscene rants brought to you by @Retrolover ;). Anyways, the fact remains that The Simpson's relevancy to the 80s is as weak as Spongebob was to the 90s. Does that make 89' any less 80s, NO. Does that make 99' any less 90s, NO.


Posted by: Retrolover
« on: Today at 11:32:51 PM » Insert Quote
Quote from: Slim95 on Today at 10:25:03 PM
Yes and in my personal opinion I don't think 1999 was '90s culturally at all and I don't think 2009 was 2000s culturally at all. But 1989 was still very much '80s culturally, just like 2019 is still very much 2010s culturally still.

2009 was culturally 2000s because a lot of the entertainment was for solely Millennials and Zers still. “UFC” is a late Zers’ “WWF”, Millennials were proud to have voted in Barack Obama, and Xers along with XYers (both parent groups of the ‘00s) were happy to see Ed ‘O Neil (aka Al Bundy) on prime time again in “Modern Family”.

The 2000s did end culturally until 2011 when Instagram was big with Yers and Zers and “Minecraft” was introduced for late Zers and early Alphas.

The only thing here that I can kinda agree with you with. Keyword; 'kinda'. As not really at all. Like what is your obsession with Alphas, weren't they born in like 2010 or something? Are saying that literal fetuses at the time were influencing kid culture in 2009? Please just spare your embarrassing excuse for being 'edgy' or being the 'voice of reason' ;D. Good night, and God speed to you, you truly need it.

Movie wise in 2020, there will be a lot of sequels to 80's classics, including Top Gun, Ghostbusters, Bill and Ted, and possibly Beetlejuice.

Movie wise in 2020, there will be a lot of sequels to 80's classics, including Top Gun, Ghostbusters, Bill and Ted, and possibly Beetlejuice.
With "Ghostbusters" why bother? The female version a few years back was a complete disaster.

What do you picture 2020 looking like? Will there be more robots everywhere in the US in 2020 or same as now?



I would like to see more and more kiosks in fast food joints and more U-Scan machines in supermarkets replacing cashiers.

Ok... @Retrolover I was going to be nice and just let you off the hook, but you're weird ass obsessions left me no choice. This is my last response on this thread in relation to generations (in which I am just as perplexed of this coming up as anybody else :o). Let me address each of your points, one by one.

I, and most people on this forum beg to differ, but nonetheless.


Ok so even while you are trying to defend your claim, you contradict yourself. You claim (later on, something that we both agree on) that The Simpsons and Spongebob are cultural icons within animation, arguably in culture at large. You claim that when Spongebob was first on the air in Mid 1999 (without evidence btw, but I digress) that the show was marketed exclusively towards Late Millennials and Early Zers. The Simpsons being marketed towards Boomers, Xers, and X/Yers. First of all, the first months of 1990, would've meant that, based on your definition, some of the earliest Millennials (87' borns) were already technically kids and to be of main influence of pop culture. Therefor, you exclude them from being able to partake in the original run of The Simpsons during its first season in 1989-1990, when you just said a post ago that once someone is 3 years of age they are now to be expected to be influenced by the kid culture being marketed to.

So if we're following that logic, The Simpsons could've been marketed to Boomers, Xers, 'Xellenials', and even some of the first Millennials as well. Why are you comfortable in not saying that "The Simpsons was a FOX Cartoon meant to grab Baby Boomers, Xers, Xellenials, and early Millennials", but you're completely comfortable in saying "Spongebob Squarepants was a Nickelodeon cartoon meant to grab late Millennials and early Zers"?

Ok, I'll give you partial credit on that. But the fact still remains, The Simpsons (be it the Tracey Ulman Shorts from 87'-89' and the Christmas special that aired in 89') is as much culturally in tune with the 1980s as Spongebob was for the 1990s (the first season taking place entirely in 1999). Despite The Simspons airing in the VERY late 80s, nobody associates The Simpsons with 1980s kid culture. However, that doesn't negate the fact that despite a big show like The Simpsons debuting in 89', the year still had a lot of 80s elements in kid culture ('TMNTmania', NES, The Real Ghost Busters, etc.). In the same way, 99' had Spongebob, a show that would define the 2000s, but also had a lot of 90s elements in kid culture ('Pokemania', N64, Hey Arnold, etc.).


Once again, as I eluded to above, I'm glad we both agree.

Ok, when did I (or anybody on here or in real life) ever made the claim that both The Simpsons and Spongebob are from the same era? In the sense that the peak in quality for the respective shows (so 1991-1997 for The Simpsons and 1999-2004 for Spongebob) were part of the same era? They both had happen to air in the 90s, but one show was culturally engrained in what was the 90s, while the other one more in the 00s. When both of these shows first coming onto air is irrelevant to this conversation.

Secondly, I find it interesting that now all of a sudden you are concerned about grouping "All numerical 90s years as the same", when you're the same person that is insistent in separating 95' and 96' babies (once again, for some weird obsession) because 95ers had happen to be 3 in 98'.... ??? Idk. But what's weirder is that you just said moments ago that
In which I correctly noted that those born in 87' were already 3/in childhood, so by your logic they would also be marketed towards Simpsons merchandise in the same way you felt that 96ers, being among the first Zers in your view, were being equally marketed to as Late Millenials when Spongebob debuted in 99', and now all of a sudden you're concerned with the 90s being generalized as 'the same'. So what you're logic is saying is that, 1990-1998 was NOT "worlds apart", but 1990-1999, or I dare say it, 1998-1999, NO NO NO, those were two completely different eras. That doesn't make any sense, what so ever.

I wouldn't be as annoyed if you simply just stuck to your original rhetoric about 98' "being the last year that was culturally more 90s than 00s", but now that notion has been thrown out the window because you now concede that even if 98' was still culturally 90s, that (in your own words) "Grouping pop culture from one era to another that was worlds apart due to the numerical order of years is a lazy thing to do."

So simple question I have for you, is it lazy for me to assume that your argumentation for why Millennials are those born from 87'-95' because they all happen to be 3 from 1990-1998, when you just admitted that to make the assumption that the culture of the 90s was the same in two (possibly three) sections is deemed 'lazy', is also, well quite frankly, lazy? If you're just going off your opinion that 98' was slightly more 90s influenced than 00s influenced in comparison to 99', wouldn't the mere fact that 98' is much more closer in relation to 99' be evidence that an 95er's childhood experience was "world apart" to someone born in 87'? Or are you just conveniently brushing that aside?

Genuinely curious.


It's not just an interesting philosophy. You see, my theory can actually be backed up by psychology and physiology:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Child_development_stages.svg/2560px-Child_development_stages.svg.png

As you can see in this graph, citing the Macmillan Dictionary for Students Macmillan, Pan Ltd. (1981), page 173. Retrieved 2010-7-15., toddlerhood begins at around 12 months and ends at around age 3. The 'pre schooler' range begins at around age 2 and lasts to about age 6. Overarching these two age ranges is a wide span known as 'Play Age', from 12 months of age to about age 8 (right before girls begin to start puberty, typically at age 9). 'Primary school' age begins at age 5 and ends at about age 11. At around age 9, girls start going through puberty, and both sexes begin the 'preadolescence' phase/or their 'tween' years as they start to transition smoothly out of childhood and into teenagedhood (however, they are in their early 'youthhood' at this point). Nicely in between is ages 7 & 8, which are both right before the start of the preadolescence phase and right after the end of the pre schooler phase. As well, they are both in the mathematic mid point of what is primary school age, and are the last two years where they are technically part of the 'play age'.

This suggests that based on scientific research on the manner, we should base childhood on what equally surrounds ages 7 & 8, add 4 years on either side and you get ages 3 & 12 respectively. Personally though, I begin it more at around age 3.5, because constant memories are not developed until around that time period. After your 12th birthday, and especially when one is 12.5 years of age, I don't personally really see that as one's childhood anymore (even accounting for late childhood), not just because of my personal opinion, but also based on extensive research that suggests that puberty begins to take hold more at this point in time.

Please try and discard ages 7.5-8 as 'peak' childhood as merely 'a neat philosophy'. Go ahead, I'll wait.


Ok, now this is just a bunch of pure 'No True Scottsman' fallacies. Are you seriously telling me that you have never heard an 86' born have affinity to the Might Morphin Power Rangers? Guess whom apparently was a huge MMPR nut back in the mid 90s? My 1985 born sister. Dude, just give up ;D.

Also, I find it funny how you're being so desperate to make the generation Millennials so small (merely just 8 years), but yet you're willing to make the supposed cusp generation of X and Millennials (say it with me, 'Xennials) as 11 years long. I thought that 85' & 86' borns were Xennials because they remember the 80s? I thought that 95' & (oh my bad, was about to say 96' borns, oopsies ;D) as Millennials because they remember the 90s? So.... we're just going to ignore the fact that 75ers and 76ers both remember 78' & or 79' respectively, which would technically make them true, unapologetic, and unadulterated Gen Xers by your own logic from before, right? Or am I missing something?


GREAT! More obscene rants brought to you by @Retrolover ;). Anyways, the fact remains that The Simpson's relevancy to the 80s is as weak as Spongebob was to the 90s. Does that make 89' any less 80s, NO. Does that make 99' any less 90s, NO.


The only thing here that I can kinda agree with you with. Keyword; 'kinda'. As not really at all. Like what is your obsession with Alphas, weren't they born in like 2010 or something? Are saying that literal fetuses at the time were influencing kid culture in 2009? Please just spare your embarrassing excuse for being 'edgy' or being the 'voice of reason' ;D. Good night, and God speed to you, you truly need it.


You are one large ego trip today and your information is incorrect. Once again, you are twisting around my words in an attempt to make me sound dumber than you.  >:(

Other than this one, I will try not to hold any conversations with you in this thread.

Movie wise in 2020, there will be a lot of sequels to 80's classics, including Top Gun, Ghostbusters, Bill and Ted, and possibly Beetlejuice.


All of the 2020s sequels will be awful. Haven’t we seen this happen time and time again in this century already?!

Leave the classics alone.

I would like to see more and more kiosks in fast food joints and more U-Scan machines in supermarkets replacing cashiers.


Ah…I don’t know if I want that, but some cashiers could stop being lazy and hateful towards customers. The whole kiosk versus cashier debate makes me wonder how these cashiers on their cell phones at work get hired. Anyone can look somewhat decent for an interview and rehearse their lines for the interview before they get in. Instead of pointless interviewers, employers should station candidates behind registers and have them fake ring up the employers item. Get the potential cashiers ready for a day at work. Then, the candidates that are only there for the paycheck will be sorted out from the candidates who give great customer service.

I don’t like kiosks and U-Scan machines taking away jobs from human beings.

Movie wise in 2020, there will be a lot of sequels to 80's classics, including Top Gun, Ghostbusters, Bill and Ted, and possibly Beetlejuice.


Yeah, you mentioned before how 2019-2020 reminds you of 2003-2004. To me it reminds me more of 1983-1984; A GOP President, A Good (but on shaky ground) economy, A neo 'cold war' with Russia (& to a slightly lesser extent, China), More colorful forms of fashion, A new wave of entrepreneurship (with the rise of the 'Yuccie', a blend of 'yuppie' and 'hipster'), etc. etc.

I would like to see more and more kiosks in fast food joints and more U-Scan machines in supermarkets replacing cashiers.
These devices is just the world anti-social, no one to talk too.

Ah…I don’t know if I want that, but some cashiers could stop being lazy and hateful towards customers. The whole kiosk versus cashier debate makes me wonder how these cashiers on their cell phones at work get hired. Anyone can look somewhat decent for an interview and rehearse their lines for the interview before they get in. Instead of pointless interviewers, employers should station candidates behind registers and have them fake ring up the employers item. Get the potential cashiers ready for a day at work. Then, the candidates that are only there for the paycheck will be sorted out from the candidates who give great customer service.

I don’t like kiosks and U-Scan machines taking away jobs from human beings.

These devices is just the world anti-social, no one to talk too.
There again, if a device breakdown, a member of staff is still required to see to it?

There again, if a device breakdown, a member of staff is still required to see to it?


One to two members of staff, not over two of them. Do you know how many mouths to feed and shelter in America that there are?  :o

All of the 2020s sequel will be awful. Haven’t we seen this happen time and time again in this century already?!

Leave the classics alone.


This one is going to be a direct sequel to Ghostbusters II with the same cast. This idea actually has been proposed for over 10 years, and there was even a PS3 video game based on the story. Supposedly one of the characters is Sigourney Weavers character's son, the one who was the baby in GB2.

This one is going to be a direct sequel to Ghostbusters II with the same cast. This idea actually has been proposed for over 10 years, and there was even a PS3 video game based on the story. Supposedly one of the characters is Sigourney Weavers character's son, the one who was the baby in GB2.


Same cast? So they are going to make a CGI hologram of Harold Ramis for “Ghostbusters 3”?  :o

There again, if a device breakdown, a member of staff is still required to see to it?


What happens when the devices get to be so smart that they function exactly like a human being?  :o

I can hear all Americans in the latter half of this century already:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9YwK9fbS-wo/Vq5ATLquKBI/AAAAAAAAOHM/u4R5cpLlV9E/s1600/gonna-die.jpg

Ok, you were warned. This thread is now locked.


Cat