inthe00s
The Pop Culture Information Society...

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

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

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




Check for new replies or respond here...

Subject: A new way of defining generations

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

They are roughly under 16/17 at the moment



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


1946-1952: Older Boomers (main Woodstock cohort)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so on

Anyways do you guys agree

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

Awesome post!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

This is how I'd define the generations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


This is how I'd define the generations:

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

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

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

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

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

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


This is 100% spot on, Great job!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so on

Anyways do you guys agree

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


This seems pretty accurate to me

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


This seems pretty accurate to me


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

But, back on topic.  ::)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


Probably.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


Yeah, pretty much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

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

Early Y 1981-1985

Peak Y 1986-1991

Late Y 1992-1996

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

Early Y 1981-1985

Peak Y 1986-1991

Late Y 1992-1996

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


The TV show.


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


What about the class of 2012?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


What about the class of 2012?


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


Oh okay, that makes sense.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Ultimate Zer yet to be defined

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Ultimate Zer yet to be defined


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Ultimate Zer yet to be defined

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

Ah, I see.

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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


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

Millennials:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Generation Z:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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




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

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

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

You should check out this video on this topic:

zH0mPfR-K2U

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

Its so accurate its scary

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

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

Am I this? ↑ ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


Am I this? ↑ ???


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

You should check out this video on this topic:

zH0mPfR-K2U

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

Its so accurate its scary


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

Millennials:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Generation Z:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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


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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

true! ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


Thanks glad you agree!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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


Preach!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

I think the generations work like this:

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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



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


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


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

I think the generations work like this:

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

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

I think the generations work like this:

Baby Boomers: 1945-1961

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

lol ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

So you think Obama is the quintessential Y president?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

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

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


I would say this is VERY Accurate, Good Job!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


So you think Obama is the quintessential Y president?


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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


1st half Generation Y (George Bush)

2000 Election: 1979-1982

2004 Election: 1983-1986


2nd half Generation Y (Barack Obama)

2008 Election: 1987-1990

2012 Election: 1991-1994


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

My take on the generations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


My take on the generations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

"Millennium hype" means Y2K hype.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


"Millennium hype" means Y2K hype.


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


My take on the generations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

This.


Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

Here is an updated post!



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

Age 71+

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

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

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

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






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


Age 52-70

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

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

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

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






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


Age 35-51

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

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

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

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





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


Age 16-34

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

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

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

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






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


Age 0-15

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

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

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



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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

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


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


Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

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



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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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



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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


My kids are gonna be AAA, watch out.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


My kids are gonna be AAA, watch out.


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Like, slow down guys!

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

Like, slow down guys!

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


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

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

Like, slow down guys!

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


Same here, it's pretty trippy.

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I am Generation X.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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

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


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

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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


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

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


My father was born in 1941 My Mother 1945

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


My father was born in 1941 My Mother 1945


Silent generation!  :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


Silent generation!  :D


WW2 generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


Silent generation!  :D

WW2 generation.
Silent? It was noisy during WW2!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


WW2 generation.

That would be Greatest Generation, born 1910-1927.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


Silent? It was noisy during WW2!


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

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

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


Yeah,  a lot of my friends claim they don't want to get married or have kids. "Common law partnerships" are becoming very common (no pun), basically means cohabitating non married partners. That sounds appealing to me to avoid bureaucracy, but I think getting married is still better for tax/financial reasons.

My dad's born 1958 and my mom's born 1966. She had me very young.


That's interesting. I haven't seen that take off here in the U.S. Despite Millennials where I live being pretty liberal, we still have sort of a traditional view on marriage (and no I don't mean anti gay marriage or anything along those lines), as most people would want to be married. However who know perhaps Common Law Partnerships might start to become popular.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/28/16 at 8:56 pm

Hey everybody, watch the 2nd video you see on the page and hear what NFL Raven's Wide Receiver "Steve Smith" has to say about Cam Newton, but listen closely to the early part of the video.

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/blog/ravens-talk/steve-smith-says-race-contributes-perception-cam-newton

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/28/16 at 9:03 pm


Hey everybody, watch the 2nd video you see on the page and hear what NFL Raven's Wide Receiver "Steve Smith" has to say about Cam Newton, but listen closely to the early part of the video.

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/blog/ravens-talk/steve-smith-says-race-contributes-perception-cam-newton


That was pretty interesting thanks mqg! I never really noticed until recently but its weird to think that many of the new hot players now like Odell Beckham Jr., Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, amongst others were born in the late 80's/early 90's. Its only a matter of time when mid-late 90's babies come of age in Pro Football :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/29/16 at 12:59 am


Yeah,  a lot of my friends claim they don't want to get married or have kids. "Common law partnerships" are becoming very common (no pun), basically means cohabitating non married partners. That sounds appealing to me to avoid bureaucracy, but I think getting married is still better for tax/financial reasons.

My dad's born 1958 and my mom's born 1966. She had me very young.


It's very good for your taxes and everything. That's one of the reasons we got married. We also just had a private wedding. Very personal. It was just between me and her 'cause we didn't want some big show that costed way too much.

Both my parents were born in '54.

If anyone's interested:
Brother - 1977
Me - 1982 (duh!)
Sister - 1985

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/29/16 at 8:08 am


Silent? It was noisy during WW2!


It was definitely noisy.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: TheKid99 on 01/29/16 at 10:26 am

I think I am apart of the School class that is the first to be pretty much Z. Class of 2018.

Heres my family rundown
Great Grandpa ??? - January 9th 1972
Great Grandma November 23rd, 1915 - September 23rd 2015.
Grandma October 24th 1939 - present
Grandpa Febuary 23rd 1932 - present
Mother September 27th 1969 - present
Father August 29th 1968 - present
John August 22nd 1996 - present
Jake September 10th 1997 - present
Me & My Twin October 13th 1999 - present.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/29/16 at 1:58 pm


It's very good for your taxes and everything. That's one of the reasons we got married. We also just had a private wedding. Very personal. It was just between me and her 'cause we didn't want some big show that costed way too much.

Both my parents were born in '54.

If anyone's interested:
Brother - 1977
Me - 1982 (duh!)
Sister - 1985


Woah! You parents had your brother when they were 23?  :o That's my age! 2 spooky 4 me.

Was your wedding like Sk8er boi come true?

He was a punk, she did ballet
What more can I say?
He wanted her, she'd never tell
Secretly she wanted him as well.


;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 01/29/16 at 3:01 pm

My parents were born in the 50s

Mother: 1957
Father: 1958
Oldest brother: 1975
Brother: 1977
Me:1980
Sister: 1984


I am 6 years older than my boyfriend. My parents are only one year apart.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/29/16 at 3:08 pm


My parents were born in the 50s

Mother: 1957
Father: 1958
Oldest brother: 1975
Brother: 1977
Me:1980
Sister: 1984


I am 6 years older than my boyfriend. My parents are only one year apart.


So that would make you 36? Wow!  :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 01/29/16 at 3:16 pm


So that would make you 36? Wow!  :o


I'll be 36 in September. :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/29/16 at 4:06 pm


I'll be 36 in September. :)


You don't look it, Just like I'll be 42 in March. :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/29/16 at 6:06 pm


You don't look it, Just like I'll be 42 in March. :)

Lol, I'll be turning 20 this March

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/30/16 at 1:49 am


Woah! You parents had your brother when they were 23?  :o That's my age! 2 spooky 4 me.

Was your wedding like Sk8er boi come true?

He was a punk, she did ballet
What more can I say?
He wanted her, she'd never tell
Secretly she wanted him as well.


;D


It's spooky for me, too, dude!

If you'd seen the two of us, you'd think I was the one who was doing ballet. Plus, she's punker than me 'cause she only listens to real Punk like Dead Kennedys and Circle Jerks while I listen to that stuff but I also like the 90's/early 00's Pop Punk, too. ;D ;D


You don't look it, Just like I'll be 42 in March. :)


I will be 34 this August.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 8:27 am


Lol, I'll be turning 20 this March



I will be 34 this August.


I'll be 20 in 10 days!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 01/30/16 at 9:03 am


I'll be 20 in 10 days!


I'm also turning 20 in March too! Wow, the mid-1990s are already about 20 years old, and it will be a matter of time before all of the millennials will be over 20 years old by 2020!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 9:27 am


I'm also turning 20 in March too! Wow, the mid-1990s are already about 20 years old, and it will be a matter of time before all of the millennials will be over 20 years old by 2020!


Wow, so that means we have about 5 people on this site who graduated HS in the 2014 class. That's surreal bro!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 11:55 am


I'm also turning 20 in March too! Wow, the mid-1990s are already about 20 years old, and it will be a matter of time before all of the millennials will be over 20 years old by 2020!


2000 feels to late to be ending Gen Y. They probably had laptops when they were little kids  :o that would make 1993 look like core Y  ;D

I'd say Gen Z child centric culture was already in full swing by 2006, that's when you get Hannah Montana, the Disney Channel's billion sitcoms, the Wii and Xbox 360, laptops and all sorts of other things.

There's also a good argument for 2004 because I was still a bit of a kid then and that's when the Internet started becoming really popular for kids with games like RuneScape, miniclip, Club penguin and all that stuff.

Then there's 1999 which is more controversial, but that's when we got Roller-coaster Tycoon in our cereal boxes, we were playing Pokemon on our Gameboys and we were IM'ing our relatives halfway across the world with MSN or AOL.  I want to know if older members consider 1999/2000 Gen Z kid years as they were experiencing it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 01/30/16 at 11:59 am

In my opinion anyone who graduates high school in the 2000's and 2010's is a millennial. So that would be 1982-2001.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 12:08 pm


2000 feels to late to be ending Gen Y. They probably had laptops when they were little kids  :o that would make 1993 look like core Y  ;D


I agree, I know many people who believe millennials or Gen Y last from 1981-2000, but that's a 20 year span. Most generations only last 15-17 years. I think 1993 is the last true Y born year. 1994-1998 is the Y/Z cusp group, since we are the guinea pigs of early Z culture while we started with the end of Y culture. 1999 is the first true Z born year. If you want to know why I group it like this, feel free to ask.


I'd say Gen Z child centric culture was already in full swing by 2006, that's when you get Hannah Montana, the Disney Channel's billion sitcoms, the Wii and Xbox 360, laptops and all sorts of other things.

There's also a good argument for 2004 because I was still a bit of a kid then and that's when the Internet started becoming really popular for kids with games like RuneScape, miniclip, Club penguin and all that stuff.

Then there's 1999 which is more controversial, but that's when we got Roller-coaster Tycoon in our cereal boxes, we were playing Pokemon on our Gameboys and we were IM'ing our relatives halfway across the world with MSN or AOL.  I want to know if older members consider 1999/2000 Gen Z kid years as they were experiencing it.


I agree with Z kid culture being in full effect by 2006. 2004 & 2005 were transitional years, or the cusp years between Y kid culture and Z kid culture. 2003 was the last true Y kid culture year. I strongly disagree with 1999 or 2000 being Z kid culture years, that's absurd. The kid culture that was relevant around 1999-2000 just screams Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 12:11 pm


In my opinion anyone who graduates high school in the 2000's and 2010's is a millennial. So that would be 1982-2001.


I don'tsee a huge ddifference between someone born 2000 and my sister born 2005. Maybe it's because they're still kids. My cousin born 2000 is on Twitter all day fangirling over Justin Bieber and Shawn Mendes, making a billion tweets a day about them.  That's so Gen Z  ;D

Gen Z definitely starts somewhere in between 1991 - 1999, we are the digital natives.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 12:25 pm


I agree, I know many people who believe millennials or Gen Y last from 1981-2000, but that's a 20 year span. Most generations only last 15-17 years. I think 1993 is the last true Y born year. 1994-1998 is the Y/Z cusp group, since we are the guinea pigs of early Z culture while we started with the end of Y culture. 1999 is the first true Z born year. If you want to know why I group it like this, feel free to ask.

I agree with Z kid culture being in full effect by 2006. 2004 & 2005 were transitional years, or the cusp years between Y kid culture and Z kid culture. 2003 was the last true Y kid culture year. I strongly disagree with 1999 or 2000 being Z kid culture years, that's absurd. The kid culture that was relevant around 1999-2000 just screams Y.


I can agree. 2006 was Gen Z, 2004/2005 were cusp though probably leaning towards Y especially when you take a 2010s childhood into account.

I say 1999 because that's when Internet and computers were commonplace. The Internet wasn't relevant to kid culture yet, but computers definitely were. But then again, that would just make it a glorified gaming console.

I always felt 93 was a cusp year or late Millennial because I can relate to both Gen Y and Gen Z. Like, I  hate it when people say kids these days don't go outside, because they used to say the same thing to me.  >:( the stuff I grew up with feels Gen Y for obvious reasons though lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 12:59 pm


I don'tsee a huge ddifference between someone born 2000 and my sister born 2005. Maybe it's because they're still kids. My cousin born 2000 is on Twitter all day fangirling over Justin Bieber and Shawn Mendes, making a billion tweets a day about them.  That's so Gen Z  ;D

Gen Z definitely starts somewhere in between 1991 - 1999, we are the digital natives.


THIS. I was talking to a person on another forum just yesterday about this. He was born in 2000 and he always seems to bash kids born after 2001/2 for the reason that they weren't '2000s kid'. However I explained to him that I felt that the differences between a late 00's kid (so early 00's borns) and a 10's kid aren't really that major.

So yeah early 2000's borns are most definitely Gen Z. 2000 babies MIGHT be able to claim cusp, but they are definitely leaning on the Z side of things.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 1:29 pm


I can agree. 2006 was Gen Z, 2004/2005 were cusp though probably leaning towards Y especially when you take a 2010s childhood into account.

I say 1999 because that's when Internet and computers were commonplace. The Internet wasn't relevant to kid culture yet, but computers definitely were. But then again, that would just make it a glorified gaming console.

I always felt 93 was a cusp year or late Millennial because I can relate to both Gen Y and Gen Z. Like, I  hate it when people say kids these days don't go outside, because they used to say the same thing to me.  >:( the stuff I grew up with feels Gen Y for obvious reasons though lol.


I've been getting on the internet regularly since 2002, the first full year my family had Windows XP and broadband, however, no where near as much as I started getting on the internet a lot more by 2007 when I discovered Youtube, and by 2009 when I started getting on Facebook.

Since the late 2000's and onwards I'll be on the computer for mostly the internet only for about half of the day unless it's school or work day. Much longer than that if you include mobile phones. However, back in the early/mid 2000's I'd only get on the computer once or twice a week and my parents would give me a time limit. My mom would set the timer to 1 hour and say "hey you must be off the computer by the time this alarm goes off", and I wouldn't just be on the internet on Planet Hot Wheels or Nick.com, I'd also be on Paint, Pinball, or playing a CD-ROM game as well.

Playing on the internet, or computer in general back then before Myspace, Youtube, or any of those major social media sites became popular had a COMPLETELY different vibe compared to today.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 1:36 pm


THIS. I was talking to a person on another forum just yesterday about this. He was born in 2000 and he always seems to bash kids born after 2001/2 for the reason that they weren't '2000s kid'. However I explained to him that I felt that the differences between a late 00's kid (so early 00's borns) and a 10's kid aren't really that major.

So yeah early 2000's borns are most definitely Gen Z. 2000 babies MIGHT be able to claim cusp, but they are definitely leaning on the Z side of things.


I can get that early-mid 2000 babies can be on the cusp, but late 2000 babies were more related towards 2001 babies. I mean, they were more Z than Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 1:42 pm


THIS. I was talking to a person on another forum just yesterday about this. He was born in 2000 and he always seems to bash kids born after 2001/2 for the reason that they weren't '2000s kid'. However I explained to him that I felt that the differences between a late 00's kid (so early 00's borns) and a 10's kid aren't really that major.

So yeah early 2000's borns are most definitely Gen Z. 2000 babies MIGHT be able to claim cusp, but they are definitely leaning on the Z side of things.


Man, that's crazy! I was reading an old thread on here a few weeks ago about a 1990 baby saying how he hates that he's lumped in with 90s babies and not 80s babies. I was thinking to myself "Man, imagine if a someone born 2000 said he felt he had more in common with 90s babies than 2000s babies, how ridiculous would that sound! That's how you sound like."

Now there are places on the Internet where 2000 babies are doing exactly that! That's crazy. And no, I agree with you it still sounds ridiculous.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 1:49 pm


THIS. I was talking to a person on another forum just yesterday about this. He was born in 2000 and he always seems to bash kids born after 2001/2 for the reason that they weren't '2000s kid'. However I explained to him that I felt that the differences between a late 00's kid (so early 00's borns) and a 10's kid aren't really that major.

So yeah early 2000's borns are most definitely Gen Z. 2000 babies MIGHT be able to claim cusp, but they are definitely leaning on the Z side of things.


Do you mean Mattejiogu from Personality Cafe? If so, then doesn't he do that all the time? Despite the fact that he was born in late 2000, which makes him related towards early-mid 2001 babies.

EDIT: I just looked up on PC that jaden_d was also part of this bullcrap, but I digress. Matt actually seems tame compared to him.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 1:54 pm


I've been getting on the internet regularly since 2002, the first full year my family had Windows XP and broadband, however, no where near as much as I started getting on the internet a lot more by 2007 when I discovered Youtube, and by 2009 when I started getting on Facebook.

Since the late 2000's and onwards I'll be on the computer for mostly the internet only for about half of the day unless it's school or work day. Much longer than that if you include mobile phones. However, back in the early/mid 2000's I'd only get on the computer once or twice a week and my parents would give me a time limit. My mom would set the timer to 1 hour and say "hey you must be off the computer by the time this alarm goes off", and I wouldn't just be on the internet on Planet Hot Wheels or Nick.com, I'd also be on Paint, Pinball, or playing a CD-ROM game as well.

Playing on the internet, or computer in general back then before Myspace, Youtube, or any of those major social media sites became popular had a COMPLETELY different vibe compared to today.


Yeah, my childhood was the same. In the early 2000s I didn't go on the computer much. I had two brothers and my dad,  so we had to share, that was our natural time limit. It was mostly my dad's computer though, he used it for work. Some still consider that Gen Z though, because the Internet was still there even if we personally weren't using it.  It would be like a 2000 baby saying oh I never used my laptop even though I had one.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 2:06 pm


Do you mean Mattejiogu from Personality Cafe? If so, then doesn't he do that all the time? Despite the fact that he was born in late 2000, which makes him related towards early-mid 2001 babies.

EDIT: I just looked up on PC that jaden_d was also part of this bullcrap, but I digress. Matt actually seems tame compared to him.


Lol yeah its them. I think they are okay people but they get on my nerves about that bullcrap

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 2:09 pm


Lol yeah its them. I think they are okay people but they get on my nerves about that bullcrap


True. They're okay most of the time, but sometimes they get upset about being born in the early 2000s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 2:11 pm


Man, that's crazy! I was reading an old thread on here a few weeks ago about a 1990 baby saying how he hates that he's lumped in with 90s babies and not 80s babies. I was thinking to myself "Man, imagine if a someone born 2000 said he felt he had more in common with 90s babies than 2000s babies, how ridiculous would that sound! That's how you sound like."

Now there are places on the Internet where 2000 babies are doing exactly that! That's crazy. And no, I agree with you it still sounds ridiculous.


Well I could see why a 1990 person wouldn't want to be in the same category as late 90's babies, which is understandable. But early-mid 90's babies (especially early) just doesn't make much sense to me. Like mqg said a few times before, minus 9/11, the late 90's and early 00's were VERY culturally similar especially in kid centric culture. So I never really understood why early 90's babies distance themselves from mid 90's babies

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 2:12 pm


True. They're okay most of the time, but sometimes they get upset about being born in the early 2000s.


True I think they hate the fact that they are on the cusp zones of the whole 00's kid bullcrap, which I could emphasize with since I'm on the cusp zones of Late Y/Early Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 2:15 pm


True I think they hate the fact that they are on the cusp zones of the whole 00's kid bullcrap, which I could emphasize with since I'm on the cusp zones of Late Y/Early Z.


Yeah, but being on the cusp between Y and Z is different than being on the cusp for 2000s kids. Especially when Jaden is a late 2000s/early 2010s kid.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 2:18 pm


Well I could see why a 1990 person wouldn't want to be in the same category as late 90's babies, which is understandable. But early-mid 90's babies (especially early) just doesn't make much sense to me. Like mqg said a few times before, minus 9/11, the late 90's and early 00's were VERY culturally similar especially in kid centric culture. So I never really understood why early 90's babies distance themselves from mid 90's babies


Yeah I can see how a 1990 baby has more in common with someone born 1985 than 1995, but acting like you get along famously with people born 1981 but feel uncomfortable around people born 1992 sounds extremely ridiculous. I doubt a person like that has many friends to begin with lol.

2000 born probably has more in common with 2005 born than 1995 born though. The lumping in there is justified. Or maybe I'm saying that because those guys are still pretty young, maybe time will tell.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 2:22 pm


Yeah, but being on the cusp between Y and Z is different than being on the cusp for 2000s kids. Especially when Jaden is a late 2000s/early 2010s kid.


True! With the decade debate its easier to know who's a kid of a decade by just using good ole' math. But with generations its much more arbitrary. Everybody has their own opinion of what defines a generation and how old you have to have been to be affected by it. Three of the most common cutoff points for Gen Y is

1. Remembering (or by some, simply being born) before the popularity of the internet

2. Being born before the 20th century ended

3. (and this is the most common point) Remembering 9/11 (or in some cases just simply being born before it)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 2:25 pm

Imo 2000s kids are from 1998 - 2006 if the flash point or culmination point of 2000s kid culture is 2008. My sisters born 2005 were there for Hannah Montana, Suite Life on Deck, Zach and Cody and the Wii/DS, if that's what "2000s kids" are going to reminisce about.

I guess I'm also a 2000s kid but I never felt that way, 2000s is my teen decade to me.

Of course it would be a different story if the flash point of 2000s kid culture is 2001, I'll  totally be there for the #Only2000sKids meme lol

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 2:56 pm


Imo 2000s kids are from 1998 - 2006 if the flash point or culmination point of 2000s kid culture is 2008. My sisters born 2005 were there for Hannah Montana, Suite Life on Deck, Zach and Cody and the Wii/DS, if that's what "2000s kids" are going to reminisce about.

I guess I'm also a 2000s kid but I never felt that way, 2000s is my teen decade to me.

Of course it would be a different story if the flash point of 2000s kid culture is 2001, I'll  totally be there for the #Only2000sKids meme lol


Lol I could only imagine how horrid the 2000's kid debate would be. Heck the 90's kid debate is pretty nasty right now

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 3:05 pm


True! With the decade debate its easier to know who's a kid of a decade by just using good ole' math. But with generations its much more arbitrary. Everybody has their own opinion of what defines a generation and how old you have to have been to be affected by it. Three of the most common cutoff points for Gen Y is

1. Remembering (or by some, simply being born) before the popularity of the internet

2. Being born before the 20th century ended

3. (and this is the most common point) Remembering 9/11 (or in some cases just simply being born before it)



Talk about arbitrary. Why for some things you just have to be born before them, but for other things you have to remember it? Why different rules for different things anyways? That makes no sense? I think the same rules should apply for all of them. Either be born before Internet popularity and 9/11. Or just be able to be remember a time before popularity and 9/11. This is when things get more tricky, however. You see the "remember a time before IE" rule means that even those as early as 1990/1991 would be Gen Z as they were just 4-5 when IE released. Would mostly grow up and have memories after IE released. And 1992 onward would also be Gen Z when following that logic. As for being born before IE that rule is very arbitrary to me. Sometimes I would base a generation based on experience or traits. Lets take someone from 1993 and someone from 1995. They both ended up growing up in a world after IE released despite one being born before IE and one being born the same year as IE. Being born before something isn't what makes two people different. Rather it's actual experiences. And if two people grew up in a post-IE released world then they'd have similar experiences (plus a 1993 and 1995 are only 1-2 years apart which is too small of an age gap to say that there are any real differences).

The 20th century rule I supposed that may work as it's probably the reason the generation is called the "millennials" in the first place. The 9/11 rule has similar issues as the IE rule, but hey it's all up to opinion. I say the rules are arbitrary although some of my points may also be seen as arbitrary to a few of you. It's all  bit confusing for me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 3:12 pm


Lol I could only imagine how horrid the 2000's kid debate would be. Heck the 90's kid debate is pretty nasty right now


Surely we've all learnt from our mistakes  :o

I'm going to defend mid-2000s babies' right to call themselves 2000s kids, what about you?  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 3:16 pm


Surely we've all learnt from our mistakes  :o

I'm going to defend mid-2000s babies' right to call themselves 2000s kids, what about you?  ;D


Mid 2000s babies? There's no way that they're 2000s kids. Sure, '04 babies can remember a bit of the late '00s, but not that much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 3:20 pm

I agree a "born before" rule is very arbitrary.

To me, we first have to agree on whether Gen Z-centric kid culture starts 2006, 2004 or 1999. If we can agree what year it starts on, if you had a significant portion of your childhood occur after those years, then you can be leaning Gen Z if not pure Gen Z. I explained why those years in a previous post.

If we agree with 2006, that would make 1999 the first full Gen Z, 1998 a cusp leaning Z, and 96/97 cusps leaning Y.

If we agree with 2004, that would make 1997 the first full Z, 1996 cusp leaning Z, and 1993-95 cusp leaning Y.

If we agree with 1999/2000, that would make 1992/1993 the first full Z, and 1991 cuspers leaning both, and 1990 a cusp leaning Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 3:25 pm


Surely we've all learnt from our mistakes  :o

I'm going to defend mid-2000s babies' right to call themselves 2000s kids, what about you?  ;D


Hopefully we'd learn the mistakes. Although this may not be the case for the young 2000s born who haven't taken part in the debates as of yet. Heck most 2000s/2010s born may not even be aware of the 1990s nostalgia/debates that're going on. As for defending mid 00's babies well I mostly base things on school years and where a majority of one's main childhood took place. I see main childhood as 5-10 as that's when someone is in elementary from grades K-5 (Due to being born in the summer that means I was 5 for all of grade K and 10 for all of grade 5). But it's different for everyone I suppose (if you're born in the winter/spring you'd both 5-6 in grade K and 10-11 in grade 5. And if you're born in the fall you'd be age 6 in grade K and age 11 in grade 5. So it really depends on the person for when they were born and their overall experiences). But in the end it's up to the person on what they consider themselves to be. I'm in no position to go around telling people how they grew up especially since I haven't ever taken part in that person's life. So in the end who am I to judge?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 3:26 pm


Mid 2000s babies? There's no way that they're 2000s kids. Sure, '04 babies can remember a bit of the late '00s, but not that much.


My sisters born 2005 can remember the late 2000s, maybe with the help of my own memories, but they can.

Say you were a Buzzfeed 'journalist' and you were tasked with creating a 2000s kid list, what would you list? (in list form please, not pictures, I don't want to scroll on mobile lol)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 3:28 pm


I agree a "born before" rule is very arbitrary.

To me, we first have to agree on whether Gen Z-centric kid culture starts 2006, 2004 or 1999. If we can agree what year it starts on, if you had a significant portion of your childhood occur after those years, then you can be leaning Gen Z if not pure Gen Z. I explained why those years in a previous post.

If we agree with 2006, that would make 1999 the first full Gen Z, 1998 a cusp leaning Z, and 96/97 cusps leaning Y.

If we agree with 2004, that would make 1997 the first full Z, 1996 cusp leaning Z, and 1993-95 cusp leaning Y.

If we agree with 1999/2000, that would make 1992/1993 the first full Z, and 1991 cuspers leaning both, and 1990 a cusp leaning Y.


1999/2000 and 2004 seems really unfair. I think anybody should arguably agree that 2006 was the first full Z year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 3:32 pm


1999/2000 and 2004 seems really unfair. I think anybody should arguably agree that 2006 was the first full Z year.


That's true but I'm scared of my personal bias ccreeping in since I was in prime childhood in the Y2K era and was still a bit of a kid in 2004, I don't want personal bias creeping in so I list all possible years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 3:39 pm


I agree a "born before" rule is very arbitrary.

To me, we first have to agree on whether Gen Z-centric kid culture starts 2006, 2004 or 1999. If we can agree what year it starts on, if you had a significant portion of your childhood occur after those years, then you can be leaning Gen Z if not pure Gen Z. I explained why those years in a previous post.

If we agree with 2006, that would make 1999 the first full Gen Z, 1998 a cusp leaning Z, and 96/97 cusps leaning Y.

If we agree with 2004, that would make 1997 the first full Z, 1996 cusp leaning Z, and 1993-95 cusp leaning Y.

If we agree with 1999/2000, that would make 1992/1993 the first full Z, and 1991 cuspers leaning both, and 1990 a cusp leaning Y.


Out of the 1999/2000, 2004, and 2006 options I'd say that 2006-2007 were the first year for Gen Z kid culture. Early '00s, and mid '00s seem like the late years for Gen Y kid culture. late '00s (although numerically 2006 is the ending of the mid '00s) would most likely be the '00s start of Gen Z kid culture. Late Gen Y Kid culture is basically a mix between core Gen Y kid culture and early Gen Z kid culture. Today's culture can be see as Gen Z culture for kids. Now if you were to go back in time 10+ years you'd realize that a lot of things kids do/have today either didn't exist, was in their infancy, or just wasn't the trend. Kids in the early-core '00s aren't the same as kids in the late-core '10s. But again what I'm saying is all just opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 3:40 pm


I agree a "born before" rule is very arbitrary.

To me, we first have to agree on whether Gen Z-centric kid culture starts 2006, 2004 or 1999. If we can agree what year it starts on, if you had a significant portion of your childhood occur after those years, then you can be leaning Gen Z if not pure Gen Z. I explained why those years in a previous post.


I'm sticking with 2006. 2004 is very debatable, but I'd still consider it as transitional along with 2005. 1999 is OUT of the question. I don't know who came up with that. There's no way early 90's babies are part of Gen Z, unless someone else's definition of Gen Y is completely different, like late 70's or early 80's babies being the peak of the generation or something. When most people would disagree on that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 3:42 pm


Out of the 1999/2000, 2004, and 2006 options I'd say that 2006-2007 were the first year for Gen Z kid culture. Early '00s, and mid '00s seem like the late years for Gen Y kid culture. late '00s (although numerically 2006 is the ending of the mid '00s) would most likely be the '00s start of Gen Z kid culture. Late Gen Y Kid culture is basically a mix between core Gen Y kid culture and early Gen Z kid culture. Today's culture can be see as Gen Z culture for kids. Now if you were to go back in time 10+ years you'd realize that a lot of things kids do/have today either didn't exist, was in their infancy, or just wasn't the trend. Kids in the early-core '00s aren't the same as kids in the late-core '10s. But again what I'm saying is all just opinion.


Like I said before. 2003 was the last true year for Y kid culture. 2004 & 2005 were transitional or on the cusp. 2006 was the first true year for Z kid culture.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 3:52 pm


Like I said before. 2003 was the last true year for Y kid culture. 2004 & 2005 were transitional or on the cusp. 2006 was the first true year for Z kid culture.


So then if you're an early '00's kid or older most of your childhood would've been with the Y kid culture. 2004-2005 are transitional alright. And I agree with the 2006 being the first true year for kid culture (well I say 2006 or 2007 but hey close enough. I see 2006 as a transitional as 2006 wasn't all that different from 2005 cultural wise, but hey what do I know). If you're peak childhood was in 2003 or before I'd see the person as late Gen Y. If a person's peak was 2004 they'd be a cusp leaning on Y. If it the peak was in 2005 that person is a cusp leaning to Z. And from 2006 onward I guess it's fully Z from their.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 01/30/16 at 3:55 pm

The first time I heard about Millenials, or what was then called Generation Y, I saw a newspaper article that listed us Millenials as 1981 to 1996.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 4:00 pm


The first time I heard about Millenials, or what was then called Generation Y, I saw a newspaper article that listed us Millenials as 1981 to 1996.


Funny enough I didn't hear about Millennials until 2014. Boy oh boy was I late to the party. Anyways I kept seeing spans from 1980 - 1995, 1982-1996, and 1981-1996. I remember my old college teacher saying the spans were around 1982-1996 which I tend to agree with in most cases. But there will never be an actual set definition.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 01/30/16 at 4:08 pm


Funny enough I didn't hear about Millennials until 2014. Boy oh boy was I late to the party. Anyways I kept seeing spans from 1980 - 1995, 1982-1996, and 1981-1996. I remember my old college teacher saying the spans were around 1982-1996 which I tend to agree with in most cases. But there will never be an actual set definition.


Past 1997 is pushing it to me. Before 1980 is pushing it to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 4:10 pm


I'm sticking with 2006. 2004 is very debatable, but I'd still consider it as transitional along with 2005. 1999 is OUT of the question. I don't know who came up with that. There's no way early 90's babies are part of Gen Z, unless someone else's definition of Gen Y is completely different, like late 70's or early 80's babies being the peak of the generation or something. When most people would disagree on that.


Statistics Canada says 1992 is the end of Gen Y, or the Echo Boomers. It says after that is the Digital Natives, so I'm guessing they would see 1999 as the shift year.

I doubt their countrymen agree with them though, since even the media calls 2015 the first full millennial election year. 2011, millennials were dominant too, but not over powering just yet. I'm born 93 yet got to vote in both elections so I'm not sure if the media would call me Gen Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 4:12 pm


Past 1997 is pushing it to me. Before 1980 is pushing it to me.


It's the same for me. I'd see some moments where it would say that Gen Y began in the 1970s which is WAY too early to me. And anything past 1997 seems way to late to end it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 4:17 pm


Talk about arbitrary. Why for some things you just have to be born before them, but for other things you have to remember it? Why different rules for different things anyways? That makes no sense? I think the same rules should apply for all of them. Either be born before Internet popularity and 9/11. Or just be able to be remember a time before popularity and 9/11. This is when things get more tricky, however. You see the "remember a time before IE" rule means that even those as early as 1990/1991 would be Gen Z as they were just 4-5 when IE released. Would mostly grow up and have memories after IE released. And 1992 onward would also be Gen Z when following that logic. As for being born before IE that rule is very arbitrary to me. Sometimes I would base a generation based on experience or traits. Lets take someone from 1993 and someone from 1995. They both ended up growing up in a world after IE released despite one being born before IE and one being born the same year as IE. Being born before something isn't what makes two people different. Rather it's actual experiences. And if two people grew up in a post-IE released world then they'd have similar experiences (plus a 1993 and 1995 are only 1-2 years apart which is too small of an age gap to say that there are any real differences).

The 20th century rule I supposed that may work as it's probably the reason the generation is called the "millennials" in the first place. The 9/11 rule has similar issues as the IE rule, but hey it's all up to opinion. I say the rules are arbitrary although some of my points may also be seen as arbitrary to a few of you. It's all  bit confusing for me.



Yep there is never going to be a solid cutoff point. However, if it were up to me I agree that the 20th century rule is the best (and IMO) the least controversial cutoff point, because Millennials are called Millennials for a reason. Its because they were the last to be born in the new millennium. Now I am not suggesting that someone from 1982 is in the same exact category as someone from 2000 (or anybody born in the 90's) but as of now it seems like the 80's & 90's definition just seems the most fleshed out right now

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 4:18 pm


Statistics Canada says 1992 is the end of Gen Y, or the Echo Boomers. It says after that is the Digital Natives, so I'm guessing they would see 1999 as the shift year.

I doubt their countrymen agree with them though, since even the media calls 2015 the first full millennial election year. 2011, millennials were dominant too, but not over powering just yet. I'm born 93 yet got to vote in both elections so I'm not sure if the media would call me Gen Z.


Whoa there!  :o 1992 seems way too early. But then again I'm not sure how Canada works. From what I remember 2015 was said to be the first full millennial year (and the year millennials would overtake Baby Boomers). 1993 to me is late Y instead of Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 4:23 pm


My sisters born 2005 can remember the late 2000s, maybe with the help of my own memories, but they can.

Say you were a Buzzfeed 'journalist' and you were tasked with creating a 2000s kid list, what would you list? (in list form please, not pictures, I don't want to scroll on mobile lol)


I would list...

- Cartoon Network's CN City, Summer/Fall, and Noods eras
- Nickelodeon's silver and bronze ages (late 90s to September 2009)
- Disney Channel from the early 2000s to 2006-08
- Discovery Kids (along with Ready Set Learn) from the early 2000s to October 2010
- PBS Kids (before 2013, when they were rebranded)
- HBO Family (for those who actually remember it)
- Radio KOL
- KOL Secret Slumber Party on CBS
- Kewlopolis on CBS
- YTV
- Teletoon
- Family Channel
- DVDs (obviously)
- A few early 2000s movies released on VHS
- Neopets
- YouTube's golden age (before Google+ came)
- World of Warcraft
- Wildtangent Games
- Shockwave Games
- Big Fish Games
- YTMND
- Myspace
- Grand Theft Auto games (from 3D Universe)
- Weston Woods/Scholastic Video Collection videos
- Britney Spears
- Lady Gaga
- Justin Timberlake
- Kanye West (before the 2009 VMAs incident)
- Beyonce
- New York Yankees' dynasty from the late 90s to late 00s
- Tom Brady
- NFL and MLB on FOX

You could add on from this, since I could just say it's the 2000s in a nutshell.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 4:23 pm


Yep there is never going to be a solid cutoff point. However, if it were up to me I agree that the 20th century rule is the best (and IMO) the least controversial cutoff point, because Millennials are called Millennials for a reason. Its because they were the last to be born in the new millennium. Now I am not suggesting that someone from 1982 is in the same exact category as someone from 2000 (or anybody born in the 90's) but as of now it seems like the 80's & 90's definition just seems the most fleshed out right now


Well what some seem to forget is that just because they're in the same generation it doesn't mean they can be compared. It's a reason we cut the generations into the "early, core, and late" parts. Early members differ from core members who differ from late members. The same can be said when just talking about time periods. For example just because tons of people grew up in for example the 2000s it doesn't mean that they're all the same when looking at the parts people have mainly grew up in (an early decade kid isn't the same as a late decade kid for example). Also to me the 20th century rule is the one that probably works the best to me. It makes sense as it's even the reason Gen Y are called the Millennials since the year 2000 is a millennium year as it's where the 20th century ends. Rules such as the "born before" rules don't make much sense especially when you take the time to break things down into detail.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 4:39 pm


I would list...

- Cartoon Network's CN City, Summer/Fall, and Noods eras
- Nickelodeon's silver and bronze ages (late 90s to September 2009)
- Disney Channel from the early 2000s to 2006-08
- Discovery Kids (along with Ready Set Learn) from the early 2000s to October 2010
- PBS Kids (before 2013, when they were rebranded)
- HBO Family (for those who actually remember it)
- Radio KOL
- KOL Secret Slumber Party on CBS
- Kewlopolis on CBS
- YTV
- Teletoon
- Family Channel
- DVDs (obviously)
- A few early 2000s movies released on VHS
- Neopets
- YouTube's golden age (before Google+ came)
- World of Warcraft
- Wildtangent Games
- Shockwave Games
- Big Fish Games
- YTMND
- Myspace
- Grand Theft Auto games (from 3D Universe)
- Weston Woods/Scholastic Video Collection videos
- Britney Spears
- Lady Gaga
- Justin Timberlake
- Kanye West (before the 2009 VMAs incident)
- Beyonce
- New York Yankees' dynasty from the late 90s to late 00s
- Tom Brady
- NFL and MLB on FOX

You could add on from this, since I could just say it's the 2000s in a nutshell.


Oh but this is an actual objective list  ;D I want to know what you'd list personally, as someone who has no qualms about calling one's self  a 2000s kid. Like how I'd list the Amanda Show and NSYNC, but you probably wouldn't care for those things.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 4:39 pm

In all honesty I feel like the 1980-1997 definition is probably the best one out there right now because it makes sense. Think about it, someone's peak childhood occurred around their 2nd grade year, aka age 7-8. Someone from the first half of 1980 would be slightly leaning X as they were in 2nd Grade during the 1987-1988 School Year when things were leaning on the X side of things such as Transformers in their last season, before the TMNT blew up in popularity, and when animation (especially Disney) were still in the dumps.

I think the 1988-1989 school year was probably the first school year leaning on the Y side of things because thats when shows like TMNT and The Real Ghostbusters seemed to be hitting their peak and Disney had started to bounce back with the cult classic Who Framed Roger Rabbit. So in this case, while its a bit confusing, I think its fair to say that the H.S C/O 1998, those born 1979/1980, were probably the last of X, while the C/O 1999 were probably the first of Y being in their peaks during the 88-89' school year.

Now for ending it is a bit tricky as everybody has their own opinions on when Y kid culture ended. But I have to agree with the overall census that 2005 was like the modern era's 1988. Someone who was in 2nd grade in the 2004-2005 school year was in school during when Cartoon Cartoons were still on the air, 90s Nicktoons were still shown on reruns, and when early 00's fads like YuGiOh and Beyblades were still common. Also this was probably the last Web 1.0 school year, as kids only used the internet to play games and teens for the most part used it for chat rooms. This changed during the 2005-06' school year as Myspace was now undeniable popular with teens, and YouTube was starting to gain ground having equal popualirity wth teens and kids. Also kids networks by this point were MUCH different to how they were just even a couple years ago, such as Cartoon Network having shows like Ben 10, Juniper Lee, & My Pet Monkey is a (idk) were much different programming to what CN was just showing two years prior with the tail end of Dexter's Lab, Powerpuff Girls, & Johnny Bravo.

All in all, if we had to make a cutoff point I would say those part of the C/O 2015 would be the last of Y & the C/O 2016 would be the start of Z

So as of now that would make Gen Y ranging in age from age 18 to 35, which makes sense since most marketers tend use the typical '18-34/35' age range when targeting Gen Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 4:43 pm


Well what some seem to forget is that just because they're in the same generation it doesn't mean they can be compared. It's a reason we cut the generations into the "early, core, and late" parts. Early members differ from core members who differ from late members. The same can be said when just talking about time periods. For example just because tons of people grew up in for example the 2000s it doesn't mean that they're all the same when looking at the parts people have mainly grew up in (an early decade kid isn't the same as a late decade kid for example). Also to me the 20th century rule is the one that probably works the best to me. It makes sense as it's even the reason Gen Y are called the Millennials since the year 2000 is a millennium year as it's where the 20th century ends. Rules such as the "born before" rules don't make much sense especially when you take the time to break things down into detail.


But isn't born before 2001 another example of a "born before" rule, which we agree is pretty arbitrary?  :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 4:47 pm


Past 1997 is pushing it to me. Before 1980 is pushing it to me.


I can agree with this. Not because "oh I can't relate to anyone born after 1997!" but because anything bigger than that is looking to big for a single cultural generation.  :o

I agree Ocarina, 1989 - 2005 are the years of Gen Y centric kid culture years. Always important to get someone without a conflict of interest to chime in though  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 4:48 pm


Oh but this is an actual objective list  ;D I want to know what you'd list personally, as someone who has no qualms about calling one's self  a 2000s kid. Like how I'd list the Amanda Show and NSYNC, but you probably wouldn't care for those things.


That is what I listed personally. Hell, even some stuff like Weston Woods or HBO Family is something that I experienced personally as a '00s kid.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 4:51 pm


Now for ending it is a bit tricky as everybody has their own opinions on when Y kid culture ended. But I have to agree with the overall census that 2005 was like the modern era's 1988. Someone who was in 2nd grade in the 2004-2005 school year was in school during when Cartoon Cartoons were still on the air, 90s Nicktoons were still shown on reruns, and when early 00's fads like YuGiOh and Beyblades were still common. Also this was probably the last Web 1.0 school year, as kids only used the internet to play games and teens for the most part used it for chat rooms. This changed during the 2005-06' school year as Myspace was now undeniable popular with teens, and YouTube was starting to gain ground having equal popualirity wth teens and kids. Also kids networks by this point were MUCH different to how they were just even a couple years ago, such as Cartoon Network having shows like Ben 10, Juniper Lee, & My Pet Monkey is a (idk) were much different programming to what CN was just showing two years prior with the tail end of Dexter's Lab, Powerpuff Girls, & Johnny Bravo.


You mean 2003-2004?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 4:54 pm


That is what I listed personally. Hell, even some stuff like Weston Woods or HBO Family is something that I experienced personally as a '00s kid.


You guys had YTV /Teletoons / Family Chabnel? Was that on an illegal satellite?  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 5:00 pm


You guys had YTV /Teletoons / Family Chabnel? Was that on an illegal satellite?  ;D


No, it's just that some cartoons that originated from YTV, Teletoons, or Family Channel were part of my childhood. (e.g. Maggie and the Ferocious Beast, Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends, Franklin)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 5:01 pm


You mean 2003-2004?


I meant 2004-2005, Johnny Bravo & Powerpuff Girls were in their final season that school year and you still had reruns of other Cartoon Cartoons. However I agree with you that 2003-2004 is the last firm Y school year especially since CN was in their Powerhouse Era, Nick was in their Klasky Csupo Era, & Disney Channel was at its peak of its early-mid 00's silver age with early 00's shows like Lizzie McGuire & Even Stevens in their last seasons and Thats So Raven & Phil of the Future becomming massively popular

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 5:03 pm


I meant 2004-2005, Johnny Bravo & Powerpuff Girls were in their final season that school year and you still had reruns of other Cartoon Cartoons. However I agree with you that 2003-2004 is the last firm Y school year especially since CN was in their Powerhouse Era, Nick was in their Klasky Csupo Era, & Disney Channel was at its peak of its early-mid 00's silver age with early 00's shows like Lizzie McGuire & Even Stevens in their last seasons and Thats So Raven & Phil of the Future becomming massively popular


What are your thoughts on the 2005-2006 school year being either Y or Z?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 5:04 pm


What are your thoughts on the 2005-2006 school year being either Y or Z?


Y/Z Cusp, but leaning Z overall

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 5:08 pm


Y/Z Cusp, but leaning Z overall


Okay.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 5:12 pm


No, it's just that some cartoons that originated from YTV, Teletoons, or Family Channel were part of my childhood. (e.g. Maggie and the Ferocious Beast, Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends, Franklin)


Oh yeaaah that's the good stuff  :D

I'm guessing those aired later over there? Over here those are Y2K era shows :o specifically late 90s. Although I remember watching Franklin with my sister, so maybe that kept airing. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 5:19 pm


Y/Z Cusp, but leaning Z overall


Hannah Montana aired March 2006. Xbox 360 released November 2005, DS Lite released June 2006, Wii released November 2006. 

I think just the year 2006 itself is Gen Z.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 5:21 pm


Oh yeaaah that's the good stuff  :D

I'm guessing those aired later over there? Over here those are Y2K era shows :o specifically late 90s. Although I remember watching Franklin with my sister, so maybe that kept airing.


Actually, Maggie and Franklin just kept on airing from Noggin until they rebranded in 2009 (I think). But since I stopped watching the network around 2006-early 2007, I really don't know when it stopped airing those shows. I remembered watching those shows when I was 4 to 6.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 5:23 pm


Hannah Montana aired March 2006. Xbox 360 released November 2005, DS Lite released June 2006, Wii released November 2006. 

I think just the year 2006 itself is Gen Z.  ;D


Then that answers my question. Although, Wii's release was in the 2006-2007 school year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 5:29 pm


Hannah Montana aired March 2006. Xbox 360 released November 2005, DS Lite released June 2006, Wii released November 2006. 

I think just the year 2006 itself is Gen Z.  ;D


Yeah I was 10 in 2006, so my childhood was already near its end. I'm definitely more of a Late Yer!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 5:34 pm


But isn't born before 2001 another example of a "born before" rule, which we agree is pretty arbitrary?  :o


Again it goes to show how tricky it is to try and define a generation and it's year span. But the born before 2001 one logic I can somewhat agree with. But not because of the "born before" rule as I think that rule doesn't make sense. Rather it's because 2001 borns would've mainly grew up in Gen Z culture for most of their childhoods and such. I see 2001 as Gen Z, but my reasoning isn't as arbitrary as the "born before" rule (although in the end it is just my own opinion). I'm instead basing things on when a 2001 born would've grown up and the culture they wouldn't been exposed to. 2001 would've mainly grown up in the late '00s for most of their childhoods which by that time is when Gen Z kid culture is in full effect. Some websites would have the "born before" rule, but not actually explaining why they use that rule. Heck they don't even try to break things down in terms of cultural influences. And as mentioned before I'd end it at 2000 since that is a millennium year which is why I think the term "millennials" was created for Gen Y members.

But again it's all my own views/opinion. If you see it as arbitrary then I completely understand. I don't want anyone to think that I see my own views as fact.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 5:44 pm


Again it goes to show how tricky it is to try and define a generation and it's year span. But the born before 2001 one logic I can somewhat agree with. But not because of the "born before" rule as I think that rule doesn't make sense. Rather it's because 2001 borns would've mainly grew up in Gen Z culture for most of their childhoods and such. I see 2001 as Gen Z, but my reasoning isn't as arbitrary as the "born before" rule (although in the end it is just my own opinion). I'm instead basing things on when a 2001 born would've grown up and the culture they wouldn't been exposed to. 2001 would've mainly grown up in the late '00s for most of their childhoods which by that time is when Gen Z kid culture is in full effect. Some websites would have the "born before" rule, but not actually explaining why they use that rule. Heck they don't even try to break things down in terms of cultural influences. And as mentioned before I'd end it at 2000 since that is a millennium year which is why I think the term "millennials" was created for Gen Y members.

But again it's all my own views/opinion. If you see it as arbitrary then I completely understand. I don't want anyone to think that I see my own views as fact.


I think the word Millennial came from the Class of 2000, which would be those born 1981-1982. They were considered to have grown up with the Internet, even though it was a while before they actually got it  :o

I think those born 1998-2000 also grew up mainly in Gen Z centric kid culture, which is why I think "born in the 2nd millennium" rule is a bit arbitrary.

And I agree, we're all just giving our opinions here.  ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 5:54 pm


I think the word Millennial came from the Class of 2000, which would be those born 1981-1982. They were considered to have grown up with the Internet, even though it was a while before they actually got it  :o

I think those born 1998-2000 also grew up mainly in Gen Z centric kid culture, which is why I think "born in the 2nd millennium" rule is a bit arbitrary.

And I agree, we're all just giving our opinions here.  ;)


I think a way to see it is that those born from 1998-2000 could debatbly be Z, and for the most part would exhibit mostly Z traits. However, they were still born before the millennium changed thus making them Millennials to some extent. However, 2001 is Z without a doubt because like their slightly older companions born in the very late 90's who grew up mostly in the Z kid culture, they would of also been the first to have been born in the 21st century which is pretty significant to consider. Also since most people typically start to have vivid memories around age 5, someone from 2001 would've been 5 in 2006, when Z kid culture was in full force, so all of their core childhoods (age 5-10) would've been in the Z era

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 6:02 pm

Although to be fair 2001 borns are probably the last to have vague memories of when kid culture was leaning Y, since they were 3-4 in 2004-2005.

I guess H.S Grad Class Wise you could look at it like this:

C/O 1995 - C/O 1998: Ultimate XY Cusp/Main Transformers Era Kids (Mid-Late 80's)

C/O 1999 - C/O 2004: Early Y/Main Neon Era Kids (Late 80's/Early 90's)

C/O 2005 - C/O 2009: Core Y/Main Grunge Era Kids (Mid-Late 90's)

C/O 2010 - C/O 2015: Late Y/Main Y2K Era Kids (Very Late 90's/Early-Mid 00's)

C/O 2016 - C/O 2019: YZ Cusp/Main Hannah Montana Era Kids (Mid-Late 00's)

C/O 2020 & After: Z

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 6:09 pm


I think the word Millennial came from the Class of 2000, which would be those born 1981-1982. They were considered to have grown up with the Internet, even though it was a while before they actually got it  :o

I think those born 1998-2000 also grew up mainly in Gen Z centric kid culture, which is why I think "born in the 2nd millennium" rule is a bit arbitrary.

And I agree, we're all just giving our opinions here.  ;)


Well year 1998-2000 did. I forgot to add in the part where I mainly see Gen Y as 1982-1997. I only discussed 2001 as you asked about and to clear up a few things concerning it. Overall I see the Gen Y as 1982-1997. The Class of 2000 rule doesn't seem arbitrary as it's the reason the generation has its name. But any "born before" rule is stupid. I will always base things based on how/when someone would've grown up. Anyone who would've mainly grown up in the 2nd half of the 2000s as a kid would be a Gen Z to me. If someone mainly grew up in the 1st half than they're late Y. And anything before that is Core Y or earlier. I'm with you on basing things how someone grew up and when they grew up instead of basing things on the stupid "born before" rule that usually ends up making things confusing and just downright wrong to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/30/16 at 6:18 pm


In my opinion anyone who graduates high school in the 2000's and 2010's is a millennial. So that would be 1982-2001.


What about for guys who graduated High School in the early 90's?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 6:25 pm


What about for guys who graduated High School in the early 90's?


To graduate in the early 1990s you'd have to born in the early-mid '70s which to me makes someone a Gen X.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/30/16 at 6:26 pm


C/O 2010 - C/O 2015: Late Y/Main Y2K Era Kids (Very Late 90's/Early-Mid 00's)


I think main Y2K era kids and the Late Y group should be separated. Y2K era means both late 90's & early 2000's combined together, but most of the Y2K culture is mainly late 90's culture. I think early 90's babies are the main Y2K era kids, or Classes of 2008-2012. With 1992 born's or Class of 2010 being the peak of it. I think you have to be in elementary school during the 1999-2000 school year in order to qualify as a Y2K kid. Classes of 2013-2015 had core childhood in the early 2000's, but had core childhood in the mid 2000's too and none in the late 90's. I wouldn't consider myself as a Y2K kid, but I'd rather say "both early 2000's & mid 2000's kid". Even by the time Class of 2015 were in 1st grade the Y2K era had ended and the core 2000's was in full effect, but at the same time it was still in the early to mid 2000's cultural transition.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 6:32 pm


I think main Y2K era kids and the Late Y group should be separated. Y2K era means both late 90's & early 2000's combined together, but most of the Y2K culture is mainly late 90's culture. I think early 90's babies are the main Y2K era kids, or Classes of 2008-2012. With 1992 born's or Class of 2010 being the peak of it. I think you have to be in elementary school during the 1999-2000 school year in order to qualify as a Y2K kid. Classes of 2013-2015 had core childhood in the early 2000's, but had core childhood in the mid 2000's too and none in the late 90's. I wouldn't consider myself as a Y2K kid, but I'd rather say "both early 2000's & mid 2000's kid". Even by the time Class of 2015 were in 1st grade the Y2K era had ended and the core 2000's was in full effect, but at the same time it was still in the early to mid 2000's cultural transition.


So I guess we would be the Nu Metal Era Kids

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/30/16 at 6:39 pm


To graduate in the early 1990s you'd have to born in the early-mid '70s which to me makes someone a Gen X.


I was born in 1974.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 6:44 pm


I think main Y2K era kids and the Late Y group should be separated. Y2K era means both late 90's & early 2000's combined together, but most of the Y2K culture is mainly late 90's culture. I think early 90's babies are the main Y2K era kids, or Classes of 2008-2012. With 1992 born's or Class of 2010 being the peak of it. I think you have to be in elementary school during the 1999-2000 school year in order to qualify as a Y2K kid. Classes of 2013-2015 had core childhood in the early 2000's, but had core childhood in the mid 2000's too and none in the late 90's. I wouldn't consider myself as a Y2K kid, but I'd rather say "both early 2000's & mid 2000's kid". Even by the time Class of 2015 were in 1st grade the Y2K era had ended and the core 2000's was in full effect, but at the same time it was still in the early to mid 2000's cultural transition.


I see anyone who is a late '90s - early '00s kid (I see late '90s-early '00s kids as those born 1990-1995) to be a Y2K kid since it's odd to have an late '90s kid group then an early '00s kid group and then Y2K kid which is essentially just a group within a group. To me Y2K era includes the eras from both the late '90s and early '00s meaning to me both those eras and what is their respective cultures would fit into that category.I say 1990-1995 as they were in their all in their childhoods when the Y2K culture of 1998-2002/3 started. 1992 would be the peak as those from that year are late '90s and early '00s hybrids. 1995 is the last of the bunch due to starting their early childhood when the era began (age 3 by 1998). But hey this is my own little opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 6:45 pm


I was born in 1974.


Yep, to me that's Gen X alright. Gen Y wouldn't start for another 8 years after your birth.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/30/16 at 6:50 pm


Although to be fair 2001 borns are probably the last to have vague memories of when kid culture was leaning Y, since they were 3-4 in 2004-2005.

I guess H.S Grad Class Wise you could look at it like this:

C/O 1995 - C/O 1998: Ultimate XY Cusp/Main Transformers Era Kids (Mid-Late 80's)

C/O 1999 - C/O 2004: Early Y/Main Neon Era Kids (Late 80's/Early 90's)

C/O 2005 - C/O 2009: Core Y/Main Grunge Era Kids (Mid-Late 90's)

C/O 2010 - C/O 2015: Late Y/Main Y2K Era Kids (Very Late 90's/Early-Mid 00's)

C/O 2016 - C/O 2019: YZ Cusp/Main Hannah Montana Era Kids (Mid-Late 00's)

C/O 2020 & After: Z


Honestly, I don't think a lot of boys from the late 90s/early 00s watched Hannah Montana. Even I didn't watch the show, since it was so dull. Couldn't you call the classes of 2016-19 the Wii Era or something?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 6:53 pm


Honestly, I don't think a lot of boys from the late 90s/early 00s watched Hannah Montana. Even I didn't watch the show, since it was so dull. Couldn't you call the classes of 2016-19 the Wii Era or something?


Yeah that makes much more sense!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 6:55 pm


Honestly, I don't think a lot of boys from the late 90s/early 00s watched Hannah Montana. Even I didn't watch the show, since it was so dull. Couldn't you call the classes of 2016-19 the Wii Era or something?


No disrespect to Ocarinafan96, but I also don't think "Hannah Montana" would be a good name to use. Wii era would work, but that's only assuming everyone had a Nintendo Wii. Although at the same time I'm not entirely sure what would be a good name that would help describe the entire group (without making it seem as if the group is being generalized). But hey what do I know.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 7:00 pm


I see anyone who is a late '90s - early '00s kid (I see late '90s-early '00s kids as those born 1990-1995) to be a Y2K kid since it's odd to have an late '90s kid group then an early '00s kid group and then Y2K kid which is essentially just a group within a group. To me Y2K era includes the eras from both the late '90s and early '00s meaning to me both those eras and what is their respective cultures would fit into that category.I say 1990-1995 as they were in their all in their childhoods when the Y2K culture of 1998-2002/3 started. 1992 would be the peak as those from that year are late '90s and early '00s hybrids. 1995 is the last of the bunch due to starting their early childhood when the era began (age 3 by 1998). But hey this is my own little opinion.


1992 is most definitely the peak late 90's/early 00's child since they were age 7-8, in 1999-2000. I'd have to disagree with ending at 95' though as someone from 96' also entered their childhood in the late 90's, 1999 to be exact. IMO anybody who was age 3-12 in 1999 were kids in the Y2K Era to some extent, with an emphasis on those born in 1992 for reasons I laid out before.

Personally if you ask me I would graph it like this using peak childhood, age 7-8, as parameters for peak childhood:

Main Late 90's Kids: b. Late 1989 - Mid 1992, were in their peak from Spring of 97' through Fall of 99'

(1992=Ultimate Late 90's/Early 00's Kids)

Main Early 00's Kids: b. Late 1992 - Mid 1996, were in their peak from Winter of 2000/1 through Winter 2003/4



No disrespect to Ocarinafan96, but I also don't think "Hannah Montana" would be a good name to use. Wii era would work, but that's only assuming everyone had a Nintendo Wii. Although at the same time I'm not entirely sure what would be a good name that would help describe the entire group (without making it seem as if the group is being generalized). But hey what do I know.


Non taking! I agree 'Hannah Montana' wasn't the best name I could think of. Wii Era works as well! Emo Era Kids is a contender as well since Emo was at its peak in popularity in the late 00's

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 7:14 pm


1992 is most definitely the peak late 90's/early 00's child since they were age 7-8, in 1999-2000. I'd have to disagree with ending at 95' though as someone from 96' also entered their childhood in the late 90's, 1999 to be exact. IMO anybody who was age 3-12 in 1999 were kids in the Y2K Era to some extent, with an emphasis on those born in 1992 for reasons I laid out before.

Personally if you ask me I would graph it like this using peak childhood, age 7-8, as parameters for peak childhood:

Main Late 90's Kids: b. Late 1989 - Mid 1992, were in their peak from Spring of 97' through Fall of 99'

(1992=Ultimate Late 90's/Early 00's Kids)

Main Early 00's Kids: b. Late 1992 - Mid 1996, were in their peak from Winter of 2000/1 through Winter 2003/4


I was mostly referring to those whose were in their childhoods for all of the Y2K years. 1995 born were the last the have their childhoods for the entire Y2K era (they were 3 in 1998 which is the start of the millennium era which means their first childhood memories would be of the Y2K cultural era). Not only that but they also began school in 2000 which is the millennial year. Y2K means 2000 (when talking about the exact year and not the era) which is when someone from 1995 would've started school. But if we're talking about Late '90s-Early '00s kids as a whole then it's 1989-1996. 1989 are the first of the late '90s kids. And 1996 are the last of the early '00s kids. Again this is just my opinion which is no way resembles an actual fact. I could be dead wrong for all I know.


Non taking! I agree 'Hannah Montana' wasn't the best name I could think of. Wii Era works as well! Emo Era Kids is a contender as well since Emo was at its peak in popularity in the late 00's


Oh good I was worried that I'd make you upset. I'm that type of guy who's always trying to express his opinion and feels paranoid that I may have offended someone else.  :) Also yeah the Emo era may work. Emo kids had a rise in the late 00s so I'd agree with that one.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 7:17 pm

My brother used to straighten his hair and listen to Scandinavian metal back in 2008-09 schoolyear when the ttrend was on its last legs. His hair is naturally brown/black so he didn't even need to dye it  ;D

Oh man the school picture from that year is gold. He still hides it deep in his cupboard and guards it like a hawk.

People used to accuse me of being emo because my hair is black and I listened to rock, but it's naturally like that  >:( I wonder how many people looked at me and were thinking "ugh another emo kid"

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 7:24 pm


My brother used to straighten his hair and listen to Scandinavian metal back in 2008-09 schoolyear when the ttrend was on its last legs. His hair is naturally brown/black so he didn't even need to dye it  ;D

Oh man the school picture from that year is gold. He still hides it deep in his cupboard and guards it like a hawk.

People used to accuse me of being emo because my hair is black and I listened to rock, but it's naturally like that  >:( I wonder how many people looked at me and were thinking "ugh another emo kid"


HA! It's always nice to look at old pictures from older eras, right? Look back at the Emo kid era and see what you used to look like. When did the Emo kid era end anyways? Is it still going on?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 7:38 pm


HA! It's always nice to look at old pictures from older eras, right? Look back at the Emo kid era and see what you used to look like. When did the Emo kid era end anyways? Is it still going on?


2004-2008 was its heyday I'd say, 2008-09 my brother was like the last emo kid in school and really he was just too lazy to cut his hair.

My hair was long! Long! Well not very long but embarrassing enough  :-X

I was doing Justin Bieber's 2009 hair before Bieber basically, except my hair is shinier and straighter. Looks kinda anime.

Most the girls have straight hair with bangs. Their hair has aged better lol. Most the guys hairstyle in this picture is absolute no-go.  It's either spikey hair with ridiculous amount of gel, or its like my hair, or a bowl cut.  ;D

Were you in school 2008-09?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 7:55 pm


I see anyone who is a late '90s - early '00s kid (I see late '90s-early '00s kids as those born 1990-1995) to be a Y2K kid since it's odd to have an late '90s kid group then an early '00s kid group and then Y2K kid which is essentially just a group within a group. To me Y2K era includes the eras from both the late '90s and early '00s meaning to me both those eras and what is their respective cultures would fit into that category.I say 1990-1995 as they were in their all in their childhoods when the Y2K culture of 1998-2002/3 started. 1992 would be the peak as those from that year are late '90s and early '00s hybrids. 1995 is the last of the bunch due to starting their early childhood when the era began (age 3 by 1998). But hey this is my own little opinion.


1990-1995 sounds about right.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 7:57 pm


2004-2008 was its heyday I'd say, 2008-09 my brother was like the last emo kid in school and really he was just too lazy to cut his hair.

My hair was long! Long! Well not very long but embarrassing enough  :-X

I was doing Justin Bieber's 2009 hair before Bieber basically, except my hair is shinier and straighter. Looks kinda anime.

Most the girls have straight hair with bangs. Their hair has aged better lol. Most the guys hairstyle in this picture is absolute no-go.  It's either spikey hair with ridiculous amount of gel, or its like my hair, or a bowl cut.  ;D

Were you in school 2008-09?


Ha! My old buddies back in the mid-late '00s used to dress just like that. I was still dressing the way I did in 2002-2003, but it was the year 2006. While a lot of others around me (except 1 of my other friends) was changing their fashion to match the trends. Looking back at the mid-late '00s I'm already thinking to myself "Wow I can't believe people used to look like that".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 7:57 pm


2004-2008 was its heyday I'd say, 2008-09 my brother was like the last emo kid in school and really he was just too lazy to cut his hair.

My hair was long! Long! Well not very long but embarrassing enough  :-X

I was doing Justin Bieber's 2009 hair before Bieber basically, except my hair is shinier and straighter. Looks kinda anime.

Most the girls have straight hair with bangs. Their hair has aged better lol. Most the guys hairstyle in this picture is absolute no-go.  It's either spikey hair with ridiculous amount of gel, or its like my hair, or a bowl cut.  ;D

Were you in school 2008-09?


It's interesting you mention that. the 2008-2009 school year, felt like the last breath of emo. Scene probably lasted a bit longer though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 8:01 pm


Ha! My old buddies back in the mid-late '00s used to dress just like that. I was still dressing the way I did in 2002-2003, but it was the year 2006. While a lot of others around me (except 1 of my other friends) was changing their fashion to match the trends. Looking back at the mid-late '00s I'm already thinking to myself "Wow I can't believe people used to look like that".


I wasn't a huge fan of emo or scene, so my fashion was still pretty 2003ish. Though, I felt as if, the emo and scene trends were mostly affecting a specific population, which was mostly people in middle and high school. It didn't seem to effect the general public, nor did it seem to effect mainstream fashion. That why I feel this current era is worse for fashion, because the hipster influence is actually effecting mainstream fashion. And in my opinion, hipster is far more cringeworthy than emo.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/30/16 at 8:04 pm


It's interesting you mention that. the 2008-2009 school year, felt like the last breath of emo. Scene probably lasted a bit longer though.


Emo ended during the 08-09 school year similarly to how Myspace ended its main strand of popularity during that same school year. On the flip side, Scene (which I think began around 2007?) was probably at its peak from what I remember during the 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 school year. Scene phased out in 2012-13' around the same time when facebook was starting to get big competition from Twitter, Instagram, & Tumblr. Just a weird observation I've noticed

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 8:05 pm


Emo ended during the 08-09 school year similarly to how Myspace ended its main strand of popularity during that same school year. On the flip side, Scene (which I think began around 2007?) was probably at its peak from what I remember during the 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 school year. Scene phased out in 2012-13' around the same time when facebook was starting to get big competition from Twitter, Instagram, & Tumblr. Just a weird observation I've noticed


I noticed that too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 8:08 pm

Oh my God, I honestly hadn't heard of scene until I got on this board. But that's almost exactly how I looked 2007-2009  :o

I'm sorry musicguy, I didn't know. Forgive me!  :(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 8:09 pm


I wasn't a huge fan of emo or scene, so my fashion was still pretty 2003ish. Though, I felt as if, the emo and scene trends were mostly affecting a specific population, which was mostly people in middle and high school. It didn't seem to effect the general public, nor did it seem to effect mainstream fashion. That why I feel this current era is worse for fashion, because the hipster influence is actually effecting mainstream fashion. And in my opinion, hipster is far more cringeworthy than emo.


I wasn't the biggest fan of the emo/scene fashions, but I'll take those over the hipster fashion any day. Hopefully within a few years the hipster trends will go out of style.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 8:11 pm


Oh my God, I honestly hadn't heard of scene until I got on this board. But that's almost exactly how I looked 2007-2009  :o

I'm sorry musicguy, I didn't know. Forgive me!  :(


YOU DIDN'T KNOW?! :o :o >:( >:(  Do you know how much trouble you're now in?!  >:( >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 8:12 pm


Oh my God, I honestly hadn't heard of scene until I got on this board. But that's almost exactly how I looked 2007-2009  :o

I'm sorry musicguy, I didn't know. Forgive me!  :(


Lol, it's cool man. No biggie. Unless it's biggie smalls.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 8:14 pm


Ha! My old buddies back in the mid-late '00s used to dress just like that. I was still dressing the way I did in 2002-2003, but it was the year 2006. While a lot of others around me (except 1 of my other friends) was changing their fashion to match the trends. Looking back at the mid-late '00s I'm already thinking to myself "Wow I can't believe people used to look like that".


Hahaha, yeah, fashion is so different now, we'd all definitely look out of place just with our hair  ;D

I like hipster/2010s fashion more than 2000s fashion in general, but that's just my opinion. Well, it depends on type of hipster, the stuff you see today with the manbuns and the untrimmed beards? Ew. Early 2010s trimmed beard and undercuts/pompadours look fantastic to me though. Again, all just my opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 8:16 pm


I wasn't the biggest fan of the emo/scene fashions, but I'll take those over the hipster fashion any day. Hopefully within a few years the hipster trends will go out of style.


Yeah, I'm not sure when the hipster trend will finally die out. Heck, I'm not even sure whether or not we're at the peak yet.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 8:16 pm


YOU DIDN'T KNOW?! :o :o >:( >:(  Do you know how much trouble you're now in?!  >:( >:(


Honestly I always thought the Asians in my class had the nicest hair, so I just copied them. They were all about Anime hair, and now I see that's pretty much what scene is  :( forgive me father for I did not know!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/30/16 at 8:20 pm


Honestly I always thought the Asians in my class had the nicest hair, so I just copied them. They were all about Anime hair, and now I see that's pretty much what scene is  :( forgive me father for I did not know!


Actually the scene kids mostly copied the style of metalcore/post hardcore bands of the time like Escape The Fate, Asking Alexandria, Bring Me The Horizon, etc.

Now even the post hardcore/metalcore bands look like hipsters.

Though there is another style in Japan called Visual Kei, which has been around much longer than scene. I don

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 8:38 pm


I'll be 36 in September. :)

Be 21 in October! :D  Yikes! :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 01/30/16 at 8:39 pm


Be 21 in October! :D  Yikes! :o


Chug! Chug! Chug! Chug! Chug!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 8:44 pm


Actually the scene kids mostly copied the style of metalcore/post hardcore bands of the time like Escape The Fate, Asking Alexandria, Bring Me The Horizon, etc.

Now even the post hardcore/metalcore bands look like hipsters.

Though there is another style in Japan called Visual Kei, which has been around much longer than scene. I don


Oh I guess I'm not really scene then  ;D my hair looked more like this than anything

http://creativefan.com/important/cf/2012/10/scene-hairstyles-for-guys/spikey-mens.jpg

Except more round than square, if you catch my drift  ;D

By 2009-10 I remember scene was dead though. Most kids like me were dressing neon or preppy/metrosexual. And my hair was always short that year, girls liked me with short hair, even though I'm gay I'm inclined to agree with them  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 8:51 pm


Chug! Chug! Chug! Chug! Chug!


He should come over to Canada. Legal drinking age here is 18/19.  Chug chug chug!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 8:55 pm


Although to be fair 2001 borns are probably the last to have vague memories of when kid culture was leaning Y, since they were 3-4 in 2004-2005.

I guess H.S Grad Class Wise you could look at it like this:

C/O 1995 - C/O 1998: Ultimate XY Cusp/Main Transformers Era Kids (Mid-Late 80's)

C/O 1999 - C/O 2004: Early Y/Main Neon Era Kids (Late 80's/Early 90's)

C/O 2005 - C/O 2009: Core Y/Main Grunge Era Kids (Mid-Late 90's)

C/O 2010 - C/O 2015: Late Y/Main Y2K Era Kids (Very Late 90's/Early-Mid 00's)

C/O 2016 - C/O 2019: YZ Cusp/Main Hannah Montana Era Kids (Mid-Late 00's)

C/O 2020 & After: Z

Class of 1995-Class of 1998 X/Y cusp
Class of 2000-Class of 2004 Early Y
Fixed!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 8:56 pm


Hahaha, yeah, fashion is so different now, we'd all definitely look out of place just with our hair  ;D

I like hipster/2010s fashion more than 2000s fashion in general, but that's just my opinion. Well, it depends on type of hipster, the stuff you see today with the manbuns and the untrimmed beards? Ew. Early 2010s trimmed beard and undercuts/pompadours look fantastic to me though. Again, all just my opinion.


Hey that's fine. At least you're able to tolerate today's fashion. And I'll never be able to understand where the trend have having untrimmed beards came from. I mean if someone has a beard then that's fine, but why oh why did it become part of today's fashion?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 9:02 pm


I was mostly referring to those whose were in their childhoods for all of the Y2K years. 1995 born were the last the have their childhoods for the entire Y2K era (they were 3 in 1998 which is the start of the millennium era which means their first childhood memories would be of the Y2K cultural era). Not only that but they also began school in 2000 which is the millennial year. Y2K means 2000 (when talking about the exact year and not the era) which is when someone from 1995 would've started school. But if we're talking about Late '90s-Early '00s kids as a whole then it's 1989-1996. 1989 are the first of the late '90s kids. And 1996 are the last of the early '00s kids. Again this is just my opinion which is no way resembles an actual fact. I could be dead wrong for all I know.

Well, I am a 1995 born and I was indeed 5 during most of the 2000-01, which is peak childhood! :)  but since I'm from Missouri, I was in kindergarten the next school year though. So it's weird. ;D ;D ;D  I wouldn't go by what grade you were in during the school year; I would go by how old you were during the school year!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 9:07 pm


Hey that's fine. At least you're able to tolerate today's fashion. And I'll never be able to understand where the trend have having untrimmed beards came from. I mean if someone has a beard then that's fine, but why oh why did it become part of today's fashion?


It started with Movember. Most people realized they look really good with a beard lol. I think Ifirst heard of Movember in 2010.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 9:11 pm


Well, I am a 1995 born and I was indeed 5 during most of the 2000-01, which is peak childhood! :)  but since I'm from Missouri, I was in kindergarten the next school year though. So it's weird. ;D ;D ;D  I wouldn't go by what grade you were in during the school year; I would go by how old you were during the school year!


That could work. But age can be weird at times. I was born in the the summer. So when it comes to age I will be the same age for the entire school year. For example in Kindergarten I was age 5 for the entire school year and wouldn't age to 6 until after the school year ended. If you were born in the late part then you'd be 6 for the whole year. If you were in the early part then you'd be 5 and 6 for the school year. And things then get weird when you take in consideration that different parts of the world have different rules. I tend to base things on both age and grade. I was always curious on know what it's like to start school a year late due to being born in the fall.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 9:15 pm


It started with Movember. Most people realized they look really good with a beard lol. I think Ifirst heard of Movember in 2010.


I didn't hear about Movember until maybe 2011/2012. Now that I think about it in the year 2010 I wasn't paying much attention to culture. I'd see people taking part in the latest trends while I'm being too lazy to get with the times.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 9:21 pm


That could work. But age can be weird at times. I was born in the the summer. So when it comes to age I will be the same age for the entire school year. For example in Kindergarten I was age 5 for the entire school year and wouldn't age to 6 until after the school year ended. If you were born in the late part then you'd be 6 for the whole year. If you were in the early part then you'd be 5 and 6 for the school year. And things then get weird when you take in consideration that different parts of the world have different rules. I tend to base things on both age and grade. I was always curious on know what it's like to start school a year late due to being born in the fall.


Oh man, I was just talking with mqg96 about this. I don't like using graduating class because I'm born early 93 and graduated 2010, which is apparently completely batsh!t insane in the US. It's normal here though.  :D so it's not always accurate, especially if someone skipped a grade or their parents just sent them to school late.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 9:47 pm


Oh man, I was just talking with mqg96 about this. I don't like using graduating class because I'm born early 93 and graduated 2010, which is apparently completely batsh!t insane in the US. It's normal here though.  :D so it's not always accurate, especially if someone skipped a grade or their parents just sent them to school late.

Exactly!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 80sfan on 01/30/16 at 9:54 pm


He should come over to Canada. Legal drinking age here is 18/19.  Chug chug chug!


You guys and girls are so lucky!  :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 10:01 pm


Oh man, I was just talking with mqg96 about this. I don't like using graduating class because I'm born early 93 and graduated 2010, which is apparently completely batsh!t insane in the US. It's normal here though.  :D so it's not always accurate, especially if someone skipped a grade or their parents just sent them to school late.


As I mentioned before it's different depending on the person and things can get tricky when taking in consideration of that different parts of world have different rules. I use age and grades due to it helping me out when trying to figure things out or when trying to explain something, but I'm also aware that not every location follows the same rules. So I simply just adjust my age and grade rule so it can work for others based on whatever location they're from. I don't simply just base everything on how things were for me age and grade wise (I tend to do it for other things, but in most cases I'll always tell everyone that I'm mostly basing things from my own experiences). I'm from Florida so when I when I'm talking someone from a different state or region I always make sure that when basing things on age and grade I would explain to someone based on their location.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 10:10 pm


I think main Y2K era kids and the Late Y group should be separated. Y2K era means both late 90's & early 2000's combined together, but most of the Y2K culture is mainly late 90's culture. I think early 90's babies are the main Y2K era kids, or Classes of 2008-2012. With 1992 born's or Class of 2010 being the peak of it. I think you have to be in elementary school during the 1999-2000 school year in order to qualify as a Y2K kid. Classes of 2013-2015 had core childhood in the early 2000's, but had core childhood in the mid 2000's too and none in the late 90's. I wouldn't consider myself as a Y2K kid, but I'd rather say "both early 2000's & mid 2000's kid". Even by the time Class of 2015 were in 1st grade the Y2K era had ended and the core 2000's was in full effect, but at the same time it was still in the early to mid 2000's cultural transition.

That's debatable, but I'm going to have to STRONGLY disagree. I'd group the class of 2008 in with the late 80s babies, and the 2012 class I wouldn't exactly call them early 90s babies.
Class of 2009 and Class of 2010 are on the cusp of core and late Y, just my opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 10:15 pm


That's debatable, but I'm going to have to STRONGLY disagree. I'd group the class of 2008 in with the late 80s babies, and the 2012 class I wouldn't exactly call them early 90s babies.
Class of 2009 and Class of 2010 are on the cusp of core and late Y, just my opinion.


Class of 2009-2010 are can see as cusp. Class of 2012 would be late 1993 - 1994 born. Which is mid 90s babies along with say those from 1995 who'd also finish school in the early '10s (that is if they're class of 2013). I do agree.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 10:17 pm


Class of 2009-2010 are can see as cusp. Class of 2012 would be late 1993 - 1994 born. Which is mid 90s babies along with say those from 1995 who'd also finish school in the early '10s (that is if they're class of 2013). I do agree.

2014 class(late 1995-mid 1996) are mid 90s born as well.
Now the 2015 class that's debatable. Some could see them as mid others might view them as late.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 10:25 pm


2014 class(late 1995-mid 1996) are mid 90s born as well.
Now the 2015 class that's debatable. Some could see them as mid others might view them as late.


What do you see class of 2015 as? I tend to I see class of 2015 as late mostly since most of Class of 2015 would be 1997 born (although I'd see the late 1996 born as mid). But hey what do I know.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 10:29 pm


That's debatable, but I'm going to have to STRONGLY disagree. I'd group the class of 2008 in with the late 80s babies, and the 2012 class I wouldn't exactly call them early 90s babies.
Class of 2009 and Class of 2010 are on the cusp of core and late Y, just my opinion.


Late 80s babies are Y2K era kids as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/30/16 at 10:37 pm


Late 80s babies are Y2K era kids as well.

So you don't consider them to be Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Grunge era kids? I do.
And when you say late 80s babies, you mean 1987-1989/90 born right?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/30/16 at 10:45 pm


So you don't consider them to be Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Grunge era kids? I do.
And when you say late 80s babies, you mean 1987-1989/90 born right?


Oh, they might be those things as well.

I have a cousin born 1990, she was a kid with me during 1999-2001, she's definitely Y2K kid along with her mostly 1989 friends which I invited to my birthday parties.

They're Power Rangers kids too though, I was obsessed with Power Rangers in 97, they probably had it 93-97 but it's not like they werent kids during Y2K either.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/30/16 at 11:33 pm


Class of 2009-2010 are can see as cusp. Class of 2012 would be late 1993 - 1994 born. Which is mid 90s babies along with say those from 1995 who'd also finish school in the early '10s (that is if they're class of 2013). I do agree.



2014 class(late 1995-mid 1996) are mid 90s born as well.
Now the 2015 class that's debatable. Some could see them as mid others might view them as late.


What about the C/O 2011?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/30/16 at 11:51 pm


What about the C/O 2011?


I'm not sure. Would Class of 2011 be seen as late Y? I see late Y as those who graduated in the '10s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/31/16 at 12:05 am


What about the C/O 2011?

Class of 2011 is solid late Y.
Since you were born in September of 1993, I guess you'd be seen as an early 90s baby, but barely. If you graduated in 2012, you'd be seen as either early or mid 90s born.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/31/16 at 12:12 am


I'm not sure. Would Class of 2011 be seen as late Y? I see late Y as those who graduated in the '10s.



Class of 2011 is solid late Y.
Since you were born in September of 1993, I guess you'd be seen as an early 90s baby, but barely. If you graduated in 2012, you'd be seen as either early or mid 90s born.


Since Infinity and I were in between the C/Os 2009-10 and the C/Os 2012-13, I think we would be between core and late cusps as well; however, it might be difficult since we began HS in the late 00s and finished in the very early 10s.

I sure am one, but you're right that it would depend on the year they graduated HS. Even more, what would you consider early '93 people who graduated in 2012? I know plenty of them who were in that position.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 12:37 am

Infinity is 5 months older than me but I'm really a year older than her because I graduated 2010. Trippy  :D :D :D :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/31/16 at 12:52 am


Class of 2011 is solid late Y.
Since you were born in September of 1993, I guess you'd be seen as an early 90s baby, but barely. If you graduated in 2012, you'd be seen as either early or mid 90s born.


This is why I don't like going by graduation years. So I'm a mid 90s baby because I graduated in 2012. Yet mxcrashxm is a month older than me is an early 90s baby? Personally we were both born in late 1993, which is like a inbetween the early and mid 90s. I guess we're both early mid 90s babies. But the whole graduation year thing, would make it so that those born in 1994 could be considered "early 90s babies", because they may have graduated in 2011.

Honestly, I prefer going by age range, since most people can relate to those both a few years older and a few years younger, regardless of grade. Much less confusing than the whole "school year system". Personally I completely disregard graduation dates and school years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/31/16 at 1:05 am


Infinity is 5 months older than me but I'm really a year older than her because I graduated 2010. Trippy  :D :D :D :D


Yup, you and me were born in 1993 but you're actually 2 whole years older than me  :D

That's the power of the mighty graduation date! Forget those birth certificates, they're a lie! The only year that matters is the one on the high school diploma. In fact I got a couple of friends who are born in 1994, whom are a year older than me. They are such big, wise early 90s babies. I feel like such a little mid 90s baby in comparison to them  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/31/16 at 1:19 am

Age is just a number, the year you were born in is just a number as well, mental growth and the influence you got growing up is what matters the most. That's why graduation years are important to me, because of the friends you made, the peers, your learning development, etc. Nothing suddenly changes from the turn of December 31 to January 1. The change throughout the year is gradual. I mean even if you were born from July-December you're not going to be the age you're going to turn this year for most of the year. The age you'd be right now you are for most of the year. Only January-June born's are the real people who are going to be their upcoming age for most of the year. Which is why in the U.S. there are September cutoffs for a reason. But we're talking about the majority in the U.S., not the minority. Sure, you may have some people who skipped a grade, failed a grade, started early/late, other countries might have different school systems, etc. But again, I'm talking for the majority in the U.S. and even when it comes to generational technology, there might have been other countries who weren't on the same level as America, Canada, Japan, etc. yet at the time we were already more advanced than them. Like maybe whenever the internet became big here in America, maybe it didn't get real big in maybe India until 10 years after us. Which is why people from other countries who immigrated here may feel like they grew up different than many of us. My opinions are based off the majority in the U.S., but we're entitled to our own opinions.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/31/16 at 1:21 am


This is why I don't like going by graduation years. So I'm a mid 90s baby because I graduated in 2012. Yet mxcrashxm is a month older than me is an early 90s baby? Personally we were both born in late 1993, which is like a inbetween the early and mid 90s. I guess we're both early mid 90s babies. But the whole graduation year thing, would make it so that those born in 1994 could be considered "early 90s babies", because they may have graduated in 2011.

Honestly, I prefer going by age range, since most people can relate to those both a few years older and a few years younger, regardless of grade. Much less confusing than the whole "school year system". Personally I completely disregard graduation dates and school years.

Well to be fair; the only reason I said what I said was because.. I'm not sure if a late 93 baby is mid or early. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/31/16 at 1:28 am


Since Infinity and I were in between the C/Os 2009-10 and the C/Os 2012-13, I think we would be between core and late cusps as well; however, it might be difficult since we began HS in the late 00s and finished in the very early 10s.

I sure am one, but you're right that it would depend on the year they graduated HS. Even more, what would you consider early '93 people who graduated in 2012? I know plenty of them who were in that position.


They would be mid 90s babies, like me. You see, even though they are a few months older than you, they are actually a year younger than you because the high school diploma says so. The power of the graduation year is too powerful!  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 01/31/16 at 1:32 am


Well to be fair; the only reason I said what I said was because.. I'm not sure if a late 93 baby is mid or early. ;D


I'm not sure either. I guess it doesn't matter. We're all apart of the same generation in the end. I don't really care whether I'm considered early, middle, late, square, triangle, or a martian  :D

Same generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 10:54 am

I've forgotten half the people in my high school class honestly, I can't even remember their names if I can remember their faces  ;D and it was only 6 years ago!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 01/31/16 at 12:19 pm


I don'tsee a huge ddifference between someone born 2000 and my sister born 2005. Maybe it's because they're still kids. My cousin born 2000 is on Twitter all day fangirling over Justin Bieber and Shawn Mendes, making a billion tweets a day about them.  That's so Gen Z  ;D

Gen Z definitely starts somewhere in between 1991 - 1999, we are the digital natives.


I've always thought that using the "digital native" label as a cutoff point point in the Y/Z debate actually works pretty well. Personally, I think it's much less arbitrary than the "ability to remember 9/11" requirement, particularly since spending at least some part of your childhood without internet access is such a common trait among the great majority of Yers.

To simplify it as much as possible: if you have a clear memory of the first time you went online, then you're more likely than not a Millennial. I have a younger brother that was born in 1991, and he and nearly all of his friends can remember the first time they used the internet fairly easily (with most of them being somewhere between 6-10 at the time), so I'd say that '91 is pretty firmly in the Y camp. I'd even say that a fair few of you '93ers could probably remember having to adapt to using the net, supposing that your parents got a computer late (after all, there were many people that didn't get a computer until 1999 or later, including my parents). After that it gets iffier. Given the massive growth of the internet in the late '90s, I find it had to believe that the average kid born after 1994-95 would be able to remember a time without a computer. Of course, there are exceptions to everything.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/31/16 at 12:36 pm


This is why I don't like going by graduation years. So I'm a mid 90s baby because I graduated in 2012. Yet mxcrashxm is a month older than me is an early 90s baby? Personally we were both born in late 1993, which is like a inbetween the early and mid 90s. I guess we're both early mid 90s babies. But the whole graduation year thing, would make it so that those born in 1994 could be considered "early 90s babies", because they may have graduated in 2011.

Honestly, I prefer going by age range, since most people can relate to those both a few years older and a few years younger, regardless of grade. Much less confusing than the whole "school year system". Personally I completely disregard graduation dates and school years.
I go by this too! Most of my friends in my age range are between 19-20 and 25-26. It's definitely easier as it shows that we all part of the same cohort.


I'm not sure either. I guess it doesn't matter. We're all apart of the same generation in the end. I don't really care whether I'm considered early, middle, late, square, triangle, or a martian  :D

Same generation.



True on that. Despite the cohorts, there are events that will connect us together no matter what. There's a reason generations are about every 20 years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/31/16 at 1:19 pm


I don'tsee a huge ddifference between someone born 2000 and my sister born 2005. Maybe it's because they're still kids. My cousin born 2000 is on Twitter all day fangirling over Justin Bieber and Shawn Mendes, making a billion tweets a day about them.  That's so Gen Z  ;D

Gen Z definitely starts somewhere in between 1991 - 1999, we are the digital natives.



I've always thought that using the "digital native" label as a cutoff point point in the Y/Z debate actually works pretty well. Personally, I think it's much less arbitrary than the "ability to remember 9/11" requirement, particularly since spending at least some part of your childhood without internet access is such a common trait among the great majority of Yers.

To simplify it as much as possible: if you have a clear memory of the first time you went online, then you're more likely than not a Millennial. I have a younger brother that was born in 1991, and he and nearly all of his friends can remember the first time they used the internet fairly easily (with most of them being somewhere between 6-10 at the time), so I'd say that '91 is pretty firmly in the Y camp. I'd even say that a fair few of you '93ers could probably remember having to adapt to using the net, supposing that your parents got a computer late (after all, there were many people that didn't get a computer until 1999 or later, including my parents). After that it gets iffier. Given the massive growth of the internet in the late '90s, I find it had to believe that the average kid born after 1994-95 would be able to remember a time without a computer. Of course, there are exceptions to everything.
There are more factors than just being a digital native. First, there are education, social, economic, parental and characteristics. For social, the Homelanders (Z), accept people who are in the non-mainstream for who they are; for education, the staff are boomers and Xers and it consists of more difficult subjects in the curriculum; for economics, they don't remember a time before the Recession and I read some articles stating they rather save money than spend it all; for the parental, the parents are mainly the 13th Generation (X) although there are a minority of them who have Boomer (younger) and/or Millennial (older) parents as well; last but not least, the characteristics of the Plurals (Z), have 8 second attention spans; more likely to use Instagram and Snapchat than Facebook and Twitter; they have only known a digital world; and want to be entrepreneurs when the majority enter the workplace.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/31/16 at 3:00 pm


Be 21 in October! :D  Yikes! :o


You've got another 20 more years to catch up to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 01/31/16 at 3:03 pm


I've forgotten half the people in my high school class honestly, I can't even remember their names if I can remember their faces  ;D and it was only 6 years ago!


I can't even remember who was in my class 25 years ago.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 3:05 pm


I've always thought that using the "digital native" label as a cutoff point point in the Y/Z debate actually works pretty well. Personally, I think it's much less arbitrary than the "ability to remember 9/11" requirement, particularly since spending at least some part of your childhood without internet access is such a common trait among the great majority of Yers.

To simplify it as much as possible: if you have a clear memory of the first time you went online, then you're more likely than not a Millennial. I have a younger brother that was born in 1991, and he and nearly all of his friends can remember the first time they used the internet fairly easily (with most of them being somewhere between 6-10 at the time), so I'd say that '91 is pretty firmly in the Y camp. I'd even say that a fair few of you '93ers could probably remember having to adapt to using the net, supposing that your parents got a computer late (after all, there were many people that didn't get a computer until 1999 or later, including my parents). After that it gets iffier. Given the massive growth of the internet in the late '90s, I find it had to believe that the average kid born after 1994-95 would be able to remember a time without a computer. Of course, there are exceptions to everything.


That makes sense to me. I feel like a Digital Native since I got my computer in late 1996/early 1997 when I was barely 4. I remember the computer being brand new and everything, but I don't really remember if it had Internet or not. I know for sure we had Internet by 1999.

So do you see 1999 when kid culture started being Gen Z focused? That N64, Windows 98, Pokemon/Digimon era.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 3:19 pm


I can't even remember who was in my class 25 years ago.


I wonder if I'll say the same thing 20 years from now. I've already forgotten half  :o

But I have almost everyone on Facebook, so I probably won't ever really forget them even if I barely go on Facebook anymore.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/31/16 at 3:58 pm


To simplify it as much as possible: if you have a clear memory of the first time you went online, then you're more likely than not a Millennial.


I obviously don't remember a time before computers, but I do remember the first time I went online though. I wonder what you mean by this, because even though the internet was already widespread by the mid/late 90's, it didn't become a big necessity until the mid or late 2000's. Like, the kids of today who are in elementary school and even middle school too, probably first used the internet when they were toddlers without realizing it. I remember when I started using the internet regularly which was in 2002 as I've said many times, but our family had Windows XP and broadband by then, prior to that year we had Windows 98 and dial-up. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 01/31/16 at 4:16 pm


That makes sense to me. I feel like a Digital Native since I got my computer in late 1996/early 1997 when I was barely 4. I remember the computer being brand new and everything, but I don't really remember if it had Internet or not. I know for sure we had Internet by 1999.

So do you see 1999 when kid culture started being Gen Z focused? That N64, Windows 98, Pokemon/Digimon era.


I remember playing a Blues Clues Game on the computer when I was 5, that was the bomb!

Personally for me computers have always been around. However the Internet is a bit harder to pin out because I remember first personally using it in when I was 5 to play games online on the computer (one those sites being Yahoolagins!) but at the same time I don't think I was necessarily born into Internet. If I was on the computer I always opted to play physical computer games or (when we got XP) playing Solitaire or Pinball. Like many others, I honestly didn't start to use the Internet the way I use it today until the late 00's.

Also the late 90's & early 00's are definitely still Y. Especially for the reasons I laid about above of my personal experience, I would expect it to be pretty universal for most others here. For instance, when's the last time you heard a commercial marketed towards kids using the tag line at the end "Ask your parents permission before going online"!?. Exactly ;D


I obviously don't remember a time before computers, but I do remember the first time I went online though. I wonder what you mean by this, because even though the internet was already widespread by the mid/late 90's, it didn't become a big necessity until the mid or late 2000's. Like, the kids of today who are in elementary school and even middle school too, probably first used the internet when they were toddlers without realizing it. I remember when I started using the internet regularly which was in 2002 as I've said many times, but our family had Windows XP and broadband by then, prior to that year we had Windows 98 and dial-up. 


Yeah I could pretty much relate to this. We were Web 1.0 Era Kids

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 4:23 pm


I've always thought that using the "digital native" label as a cutoff point point in the Y/Z debate actually works pretty well. Personally, I think it's much less arbitrary than the "ability to remember 9/11" requirement, particularly since spending at least some part of your childhood without internet access is such a common trait among the great majority of Yers.

To simplify it as much as possible: if you have a clear memory of the first time you went online, then you're more likely than not a Millennial. I have a younger brother that was born in 1991, and he and nearly all of his friends can remember the first time they used the internet fairly easily (with most of them being somewhere between 6-10 at the time), so I'd say that '91 is pretty firmly in the Y camp. I'd even say that a fair few of you '93ers could probably remember having to adapt to using the net, supposing that your parents got a computer late (after all, there were many people that didn't get a computer until 1999 or later, including my parents). After that it gets iffier. Given the massive growth of the internet in the late '90s, I find it had to believe that the average kid born after 1994-95 would be able to remember a time without a computer. Of course, there are exceptions to everything.


Internet was already seen as a big/popular thing by the mid-late '90s. But there is a difference for when something becomes popular to have just due being the latest new thing. And being popular to have due to being a necessity. Up to say the mid '00s or earlier the internet was not something that a person needed to have. You'd still be able to live without having access to a computer at the time. By the late '00s to present a person is usually expected to have online access. Back in the mid '00s or earlier it's easy to say that teens and adults were online a lot, but not kids. If we're just talking about the popularity of internet  as a whole then even those from 1992-1993 would seen as digital natives since Internet was rising by 1996/1997 (heck some places even say that internet got popular by 1993). If we're talking about a time period where internet became a requirement for everyone to have then I'd say digital natives would be late '90s/early '00s born.  When it comes to internet I also base things on the era. Such as if someone has been using internet during the Web 1.0 era (2003/4 to sometime earlier) and can remember when things such as dial and such were more common than broadband (which was in 2004  and earlier)  then they'd be seen as Millennials. To simplify it if you've been exposed to the web in it's early days from the around 1995/6 - 2003/4 then you've been exposed to Web 1.0. During the late '90s - early '00s most kids would've learned about computers from schools if not due to their parents buying one. Kids who used Web 1.0 (Kids from the late '80s - mid '90s) are different from those who used 2.0 (Kids from late'90s - early '00s) which is different from those who used 3.0 (Kids today). Things also get tricky when you also take in consideration that people get computers at different times. So certain ideas/rules can't apply to everyone.

Web 1.0 era kids = Late Y
Web 2.0 era kids = Early Z
Web 3.0 era kids = Core Z
Although this can get confusing when using this logic mostly since Web 1.0 lasted for around 10 years from 1993/4 - 2003/4 meaning that even those who're core Y would've used Web 1.0 along with late Y. Web 2.0 was short so it's easier for me to make my view who'd be kids using it by that time. And Web 3.0 is still going on. Just comparing the eras of the Web and existed with them is enough to separate people when basing things on the time period they went online for the first time.

But all this is mostly just if you believe in the internet rule for millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 5:03 pm

1999 being the start of post-Millennial culture doesn't really make sense to me. When I think of kids who actually grew up with technology, I think of kids who grew up with tech that was pretty well integrated into society and much more accessible to use; not having to wait 10 minutes for your internet to boot up or waiting for your tape to rewind. Y2K era kids will remember two things: how in the late 90's and early 00's stuff like the internet was new and seen as a "useful tool" that was used sparingly and wasn't always very convenient (i.e. Discman - CD or Cassette, a VCR, Dial-Up) and then they'll remember the big change mid-late 00's when technology started getting easier to use and more convenient with the rise of web 2.0, DVD's, the iPod and the popularity of Broadband.

In my opinion the true Millennials would be born from:
1981-1997

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 5:09 pm


1999 being the start of post-Millennial culture doesn't really make sense to me. When I think of kids who actually grew up with technology, I think of kids who grew up with tech that was pretty well integrated into society and much more accessible to use; not having to wait 10 minutes for your internet to boot up or waiting for your tape to rewind. Y2K era kids will remember two things: how in the late 90's and early 00's stuff like the internet was new and seen as a "useful tool" that was used sparingly and wasn't always very convenient and they'll remember how in the mid-late 00's technology started getting easier to use and more convenient with the rise of DVD's, the iPod and the popularity of Broadband.

In my opinion the true Millennials would be born from:
1981-1997


Today's culture can be see as Gen Z kid culture. If we go back to the late '90s - early '00s where'd we see that a lot of the stuff we have today either didn't exist or was in a infancy state. I see millennials as around 1982 - 1996 if I go by the Web era rule I sometimes use. Basically it's simple as comparing what kids have today in terms of tech and compare it to the tech you used a child. If you see big differences then you'd understand where I'm coming from. To me Gen Z kid culture doesn't start until the mid-late '00s (Gen Alpha is now being born, but due to all of them being under 5 it's safe to say that Gen Alpha kid culture won't begin until the late '10s). Anything before that is Gen Y kid culture.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 5:16 pm


Today's culture can be see as Gen Z kid culture. If we go back to the late '90s - early '00s where'd we see that a lot of the stuff we have today either didn't exist or was in a infancy state. I see millennials as around 1982 - 1996 if I go by the Web era rule I sometimes use. Basically it's simple as comparing what kids have today in terms of tech and compare it to the tech you used a child. If you see big differences then you'd understand where I'm coming from. To me Gen Z kid culture doesn't start until the mid-late '00s. Anything before that is Gen Y kid culture.


I agree. I think around 2004-2006 is when the post-Millennial culture begins. Technology and television changed a lot during this time. A kid who is going to look back to the late 90's/early 00's and think about the tech they used and compare it to what they use today, he's gonna think it's ancient and much more inconvenient!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/31/16 at 5:30 pm


1999 being the start of post-Millennial culture doesn't really make sense to me. When I think of kids who actually grew up with technology, I think of kids who grew up with tech that was pretty well integrated into society and much more accessible to use; not having to wait 10 minutes for your internet to boot up or waiting for your tape to rewind. Y2K era kids will remember two things: how in the late 90's and early 00's stuff like the internet was new and seen as a "useful tool" that was used sparingly and wasn't always very convenient (i.e. Discman - CD or Cassette, a VCR, Dial-Up) and then they'll remember the big change mid-late 00's when technology started getting easier to use and more convenient with the rise of web 2.0, DVD's, the iPod and the popularity of Broadband.

In my opinion the true Millennials would be born from:
1981-1997


Makes sense. But is it possible to say that 1998-2000 babies were late Y/early Z cusps, since they were at least five in 2003-2005?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 5:35 pm


Makes sense. But is it possible to say that 1998-2000 babies were late Y/early Z cusps, since they were at least five in 2003-2005?


2004 is already cuspy for kid culture. I'd say 1998 is cusp leaning Z, and 1997 is cusp leaning Y if we go with 2006 being the start of Gen Z kid culture, and 2004 being the Y/Z cusp.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 5:36 pm


I agree. I think around 2004-2006 is when the post-Millennial culture begins. Technology and television changed a lot during this time. A kid who is going to look back to the late 90's/early 00's and think about the tech they used and compare it to what they use today, he's gonna think it's ancient and much more inconvenient!


Well yeah in the late 90s/early 00s
- VHS was still popular
- Ipods weren't popular
- Internet was still in Web 1.0
- Dial Up was more commonly used
- Smartphones didn't exist
- instead of Facebook or Twitter people used things like AIM
- Instead of downloading music people used CD players
- Teens/Adults had things like Nokia phones
- Tablets didn't exist
- Kids didn't have phones and such at young ages
- Napster was popular
- No one used things like Netflix or Hulu
- Youtube didn't exist
- CRT TVs with 480i standard definition was mainly used as High Definition wasn't popular yet

And many more.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 01/31/16 at 5:37 pm


2004 is already cuspy for kid culture. I'd say 1998 is cusp leaning Z, and 1997 is cusp leaning Y if we go with 2006 being the start of Gen Z kid culture, and 2004 being the Y/Z cusp.


Okay.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 5:41 pm


2004 is already cuspy for kid culture. I'd say 1998 is cusp leaning Z, and 1997 is cusp leaning Y if we go with 2006 being the start of Gen Z kid culture, and 2004 being the Y/Z cusp.


Yep! 2004 could be the Y/Z cusp year. 2004 is cusp leaning to Y. 2005 is cusp leaning to Z. And 2006 is Z. This is how I see it when thinking about kid culture.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 5:44 pm


Well yeah in the late 90s/early 00s
- VHS was still popular
- Ipods weren't popular
- Internet was still in Web 1.0
- Dial Up was more commonly used
- Smartphones didn't exist
- instead of Facebook or Twitter people used things like AIM
- Instead of downloading music people used CD players
- Teens/Adults had things like Nokia phones
- Tablets didn't exist
- Kids didn't have phones and such at young ages
- Napster was popular
- No one used things like Netflix or Hulu
- Youtube didn't exist
- CRT TVs with 480i standard definition was mainly used as High Definition wasn't popular yet

And many more.


All this. Myspace didn't even exist in 2000-2002! Late Millennials should remember stuff like this and the transition in 2004-2005 to things like:

- iPods exploding in popularity
- DVD taking over VHS
- web 2.0
- kids getting phones at younger ages
- Myspace
- The rise of HDTV
- iTunes and downloading being on the rise
- The popularity of XP over 98

All my younger 2nd/3rd cousins remember this change so I'm pretty inclined to consider them true Millennials. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 5:51 pm


All this. Myspace didn't even exist in 2000-2002! Late Millennials should remember stuff like this and the transition in 2004-2005 to things like:

- iPods exploding in popularity
- DVD taking over VHS
- web 2.0
- kids getting phones at younger ages
- Myspace
- The rise of HDTV
- iTunes and downloading being on the rise
- The popularity of XP over 98

All my younger 2nd/3rd cousins remember this change so I'm pretty inclined to consider them true Millennials.


Yeah, if you were old enough to see the changes as we transitioned to Gen Z kid culture then you'd be a millennial. If most of your childhood took place after 2004 or 2005 then you'd be see as a Gen Z due to not experiencing the kid culture of the late '90s or early '00s. All those points you made make sense to me.

What's funny is that Myspace existed in 2003, but I'm not sure if anyone of you even heard about it at that time due to it not existing for most of 2003 (it launched in August) and it not being popular until 2005 (which probably one of the reasons why 2005 is a cusp year that leans to Z). I didn't hear about it until 2006.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 5:55 pm


Yeah, if you were old enough to see the changes as we transitioned to Gen Z kid culture then you'd be a millennial. If most of your childhood took place after 2004 or 2005 then you'd be see as a Gen Z due to not experiencing the kid culture of the late '90s or early '00s. All those points you made make sense to me.

What's funny is that Myspace existed in 2003, but I'm not sure if anyone of you even heard about it at that time due to it not existing for most of 2003 (it launched in August) and it not being popular until 2005 (which probably one of the reasons why 2005 is a cusp year that leans to Z). I didn't hear about it until 2006.


I don't know if MySpace was very significant for kid culture. Did kids have MySpace then? I'd say it's Gen Z because you have the Xbox 360 and DS/PSP, so playing games online is very commonplace, you also had MMOs like Club Penguin and RuneScape.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 6:01 pm


Yeah, if you were old enough to see the changes as we transitioned to Gen Z kid culture then you'd be a millennial. If most of your childhood took place after 2004 or 2005 then you'd be see as a Gen Z due to not experiencing the kid culture of the late '90s or early '00s. All those points you made make sense to me.

What's funny is that Myspace existed in 2003, but I'm not sure if anyone of you even heard about it at that time due to it not existing for most of 2003 (it launched in August) and it not being popular until 2005 (which probably one of the reasons why 2005 is a cusp year that leans to Z). I didn't hear about it until 2006.


Yeah, definitely. All my cousins born in the 90's remember the big changes. They remember me in the late 90's/early 00's bringing over my CD's and my VHS tapes, us going on the computer (dial-up, Windows 98), when the PS1 and PS2 co-existed with each other, how I didn't even have a cell phone at the time but their parents had the Nokia phones, etc. And they remember all the changes in 2004 when technology got more advanced and accessible as stated above.

First time I heard about it was maybe late 2004. This was when a lot of sh!tty fake-Emo bands were saying "check us out on myspace!!"

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 6:02 pm


I don't know if MySpace was very significant for kid culture. Did kids have MySpace then? I'd say it's Gen Z because you have the Xbox 360 and DS/PSP, so playing games online is very commonplace, you also had MMOs like Club Penguin and RuneScape.


I doubt it. Back then it was mostly popular with teens/adults who moved away from things like AIM. In most cases back then kids didn't even use computers as much as they do today. Heck back then I doubt a kid even knew what "social media" was. In terms of gaming yeah 7th gen consoles such as the Xbox 360, Ps3, DS, and PSP would be Gen Z kid culture. Introduction of consoles with novelties such as motion controls (Wiimote, Playstation Move, Kinect), Online gaming got more popular, games are now in HD etc. And I'd include the 8th console gen as a part of Gen Z culture with it's introduction of things like Virtual Reality becoming a bigger thing for consoles. And nowadays a lot of kids would be aware of social media things such as Facebook, Tumblr, or Twitter. Gen Alpha kid culture won't start until probably the late '10s/early '20s due to all them being under 5 so I have no idea what that kid culture is like, but I am sure that Gen Z kid culture is still going on.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 6:10 pm


Yeah, definitely. All my cousins born in the 90's remember the big changes. They remember me in the late 90's/early 00's bringing over my CD's and my VHS tapes, us going on the computer (dial-up, Windows 98), when the PS1 and PS2 co-existed with each other, how I didn't even have a cell phone at the time but their parents had the Nokia phones, etc. And they remember all the changes in 2004 when technology got more advanced and accessible as stated above.

First time I heard about it was maybe late 2004. This was when a lot of sh!tty fake-Emo bands were saying "check us out on myspace!!"


Yeah, it was around that time myspace started becoming a big part of culture. I see a lot of people born in the early-mid '90s who have tons of memories from the late '90s/early '00s as it was where a majority of their childhood took place. You can compare them to kids born in the 2000s or 2010s and see a big difference.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 01/31/16 at 6:10 pm


All this. Myspace didn't even exist in 2000-2002! Late Millennials should remember stuff like this and the transition in 2004-2005 to things like:

- iPods exploding in popularity
- DVD taking over VHS
- web 2.0
- kids getting phones at younger ages
- Myspace
- The rise of HDTV
- iTunes and downloading being on the rise
- The popularity of XP over 98

All my younger 2nd/3rd cousins remember this change so I'm pretty inclined to consider them true Millennials.


I don't remember HDTV receiving any mainstream recognition until 2005-06. The same can be said for MySpace and iTunes. I remember XP taking over 98 in 2003. I think your memories are blending in a bit.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 6:13 pm


I don't remember HDTV receiving any mainstream recognition until 2005-06. The same can be said for MySpace and iTunes. I remember XP taking over 98 in 2003. I think your memories are blending in a bit.


iTunes was popular in 2004/05 because you needed iTunes to sync your music to your iPod.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 6:15 pm


Yeah, it was around that time myspace started becoming a big part of culture. I see a lot of people born in the early-mid '90s who have tons of memories from the late '90s/early '00s as it was where a majority of their childhood took place. You can compare them to kids born in the 2000s or 2010s and see a big difference.


Yeah, it's a pretty huge difference! All that technology was a big change.


I don't remember HDTV receiving any mainstream recognition until 2005-06. The same can be said for MySpace and iTunes. I remember XP taking over 98 in 2003. I think your memories are blending in a bit.


I remember iTunes and Myspace getting big sometime in 2004. Everything else (HDTV and XP) seems right, though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/31/16 at 6:42 pm


I don't remember HDTV receiving any mainstream recognition until 2005-06. The same can be said for MySpace and iTunes. I remember XP taking over 98 in 2003. I think your memories are blending in a bit.


I agree with you on Myspace and iTunes.

XP seemed like the modern computer to me by 2002, however, I could see it being the majority in people's homes by 2003 or 2004, even though most businesses or schools still used 98 at the time.

Even in 2005 through 2007 it seemed like most people still stuck with standard definition TV's or the classic wide screen TV's that weren't HD.

2008 was the year I started noticing HDTV's getting real popular from what I remember.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 6:51 pm

By 2008 HDTVs were more popular than SD. 2006 you would see them around though. If not HD, CRT TVs were definitely on their way out and replaced with flatscreens.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 01/31/16 at 6:54 pm


By 2008 HDTVs were more popular than SD. 2006 you would see them around though. If not HD, CRT TVs were definitely on their way out and replaced with flatscreens.

Yeah that's about right. We got our first HD television set in 2008 and loved the results. And the picture was really sharp!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 6:59 pm

I can see the mid '00s as when HD began to rise. By the late '00s HD was pretty much the standard when talking about television. Before that people were still using 480i SD quality TVs which has been used since the '80s and '90s if I recall correctly. Early '00s was still when CRT dominated. Mid '00s was the transition. And late '00s is when the transition ended leaving HD TVs as the norm for many people. I got my first HDTV sometime in late 2008 or early 2009.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 6:59 pm

My buddy first got a big flat screen HDTV around 2006 and he got a Wii for his wife. What an awful system! >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 7:03 pm


Yeah that's about right. We got our first HD television set in 2008 and loved the results. And the picture was really sharp!


Haha yes, we got ours for Christmas 2007. It was beautiful.

I used to go on gaming forums a lot back in 2006-2007. I remember even then people complaining that the Wii wasn't HD compatible. I told them to "just use your SDTV then". They told me once you go HD it's impossible to go back. I thought they were just being really whiny and snobby.

Turns out they were right  ;D  :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 01/31/16 at 7:03 pm


My buddy first got a big flat screen HDTV around 2006 and he got a Wii for his wife. What an awful system! >:(


HA! I like the Wii, but I was upset that most of the games were shovelware party games or games with bad use of the wireless controls.  :-\\

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 7:07 pm


HA! I like the Wii, but I was upset that most of the games were shovelware party games or games with bad use of the wireless controls.  :-\\


I remember he bought it because his wife kept bitching at him about how they're going to work on getting in shape. He invited me over and we played Wii Sports. I bet I looked like an asshole swinging my arms around like that! I won every game, though. I truly am the king of all things! :D

Needless to say, they didn't loose any weight playing with their Wii.

Also, the wireless controller is the worst at detecting movements! I remember I kept swinging it and it'd be connected to the nunchuck and it whipped me in my... uhh.. "area" a whole bunch of times. Hurt like a bitch that thing!


Haha yes, we got ours for Christmas 2007. It was beautiful.

I used to go on gaming forums a lot back in 2006-2007. I remember even then people complaining that the Wii wasn't HD compatible. I told them to "just use your SDTV then". They told me once you go HD it's impossible to go back. I thought they were just being really whiny and snobby.

Turns out they were right  ;D  :-X


But SDTV is the superior way to watch Television.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 01/31/16 at 7:10 pm


I can see the mid '00s as when HD began to rise. By the late '00s HD was pretty much the standard when talking about television. Before that people were still using 480i SD quality TVs which has been used since the '80s and '90s if I recall correctly. Early '00s was still when CRT dominated. Mid '00s was the transition. And late '00s is when the transition ended leaving HD TVs as the norm for many people. I got my first HDTV sometime in late 2008 or early 2009.


I remember how in the mid to late 2000's, or basically 2005-2007, how there wasn't just CRT-TV's anymore with the old SDTV quality like the early 2000's & earlier. There were more higher quality TV's on flat screens or wide screens, but at the same time it was NOT HD yet. It was still standard definition. By 2008 that's when the HDTV on flatscreens started getting real big.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 7:16 pm


I remember he bought it because his wife kept bitching at him about how they're going to work on getting in shape. He invited me over and we played Wii Sports. I bet I looked like an asshole swinging my arms around like that! I won every game, though. I truly am the king of all things! :D

Needless to say, they didn't loose any weight playing with their Wii.

Also, the wireless controller is the worst at detecting movements! I remember I kept swinging it and it'd be connected to the nunchuck and it whipped me in my... uhh.. "area" a whole bunch of times. Hurt like a bitch that thing!

But SDTV is the superior way to watch Television.


Naw man, SDTVs are great for playing old video games but watching TV shows?  ;D it's almost impossible.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 7:17 pm

How dare anyone insult Wii Sports  >:( that's practically my favourite 7th Gen game. I'll fight you Jordan, and beat you at Wii Boxing.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 7:27 pm


Naw man, SDTVs are great for playing old video games but watching TV shows?  ;D it's almost impossible.


SDTV is the truest way to watch TV. HDTV is just the FBI's way to brainwash you!


How dare anyone insult Wii Sports  >:( that's practically my favourite 7th Gen game. I'll fight you Jordan, and beat you at Wii Boxing.


But I am the king at Wii Sports! I could smoke any sucka in a game of boxing. You can't step up to the almighty King Jordan, Master of Xtreme! >:(

My favorite Wii game is definitely Wario Ware: Smooth Moves (smooth like myself).

http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m438l3Cl7b1ro8ysbo1_500.jpg

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 7:56 pm


SDTV is the truest way to watch TV. HDTV is just the FBI's way to brainwash you!

But I am the king at Wii Sports! I could smoke any sucka in a game of boxing. You can't step up to the almighty King Jordan, Master of Xtreme! >:(

My favorite Wii game is definitely Wario Ware: Smooth Moves (smooth like myself).

http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m438l3Cl7b1ro8ysbo1_500.jpg


Bruv people had to go to the dentist after I was done with them in Wii Boxing  >:( Nintendo should've made a mercy rule in Boxing like they did in Baseball too.

LOL the Warioware game was extremely strange  ;D Those minigames made no sense.

My favourite Wii game must've been Mario Strikers Charged. It's the most Xtreme! Mario game by far even though it came out 2007 lol.

S0YX6Mag--8

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 8:05 pm


Bruv people had to go to the dentist after I was done with them in Wii Boxing  >:( Nintendo should've made a mercy rule in Boxing like they did in Baseball too.

LOL the Warioware game was extremely strange  ;D Those minigames made no sense.

My favourite Wii game must've been Mario Strikers Charged. It's the most Xtreme! Mario game by far even though it came out 2007 lol.

S0YX6Mag--8


People had to get surgery after my mighty boxing skills showed them! The toughest boxer to have ever lived...

But they ruled! Man, that game was sweet. The Wii had peaked with that one.

Woah! Xtreme! in 2007? How out of place. Everyone was riding the lame Edgar Allen Poe Black Parade by then! >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 01/31/16 at 8:10 pm

I understand that technology is a factor that determines which generation one is apart of; however, it's not the only thing. In fact, all of the older generations were not even defined by technology, they were defined by the events, characteristics, and miscellaneous. For example, Boomers have characteristics such as being entitled and greedy; the events are the Vietnam War, Free Love, and Disco; miscellaneous: parents are the GI Generation, mainly conservative, and want to postpone retirement.

For Millennials, the characteristics are optimism, narcissism and marshmallow (being too soft); the events are Y2K, 9/11, Iraq War, and the Gay Marriage ruling; miscellaneous: parents are mainly Boomers, mostly liberal, and "awarded trophies"

Yes, technology is one of the factors, but keep in mind it's not the only one.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 01/31/16 at 9:43 pm


People had to get surgery after my mighty boxing skills showed them! The toughest boxer to have ever lived...

But they ruled! Man, that game was sweet. The Wii had peaked with that one.

Woah! Xtreme! in 2007? How out of place. Everyone was riding the lame Edgar Allen Poe Black Parade by then! >:(


Are you talking about the My Chemical Romance song? That was one of my favourites!  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 01/31/16 at 9:44 pm


I understand that technology is a factor that determines which generation one is apart of; however, it's not the only thing. In fact, all of the older generations were not even defined by technology, they were defined by the events, characteristics, and miscellaneous. For example, Boomers have characteristics such as being entitled and greedy; the events are the Vietnam War, Free Love, and Disco; miscellaneous: parents are the GI Generation, mainly conservative, and want to postpone retirement.

For Millennials, the characteristics are optimism, narcissism and marshmallow (being too soft); the events are Y2K, 9/11, Iraq War, and the Gay Marriage ruling; miscellaneous: parents are mainly Boomers, mostly liberal, and "awarded trophies"

Yes, technology is one of the factors, but keep in mind it's not the only one.

Also Generation Jones/Early X as well!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 01/31/16 at 10:42 pm


Are you talking about the My Chemical Romance song? That was one of my favourites!  ;D


I am. :P The only My Chemical Romance you could ever catch me listening to is anything off their first album! None of that make up and Edgar Allen Poe-Andy Warhol artsy crap! >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/01/16 at 7:53 am

- instead of Facebook or Twitter people used things like AIM


That was our form of communication back then.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: TheKid99 on 02/01/16 at 8:18 am

Wow I am off this board for two days and I miss a whole debate about when my generation starts...
Generation X late 1964-mid 1979
I believe the Millennial generation is late 1979 through mid 1997.
Generation Z starts in late 1997-201?
Classes of 1996-1999 are cusp X/Y (Late 1977-Mid 1981)
Classes of 2000-2014 are full Y(Late 1981-Mid 1996)
Classes of 2015-2018 (Late 1996-Mid 2000) are Y/Z Cusp 
2015 leaning Y with slight Z characteristics
2016 leaning Y but slightly leaning Z
2017 leaning z but slightly leaning Y
2018 leaning Z with slight Y characteristics.
Classes of 2019-203? Z

My brother John was born in August 1996, he remembered 9/11 very well as he was in Preschool and 5 years old.
My brother Jake who was born in September 1997 remembered 9/11 slightly but no very well.
John is definitely mostly Y but does have Z characteristics.
Jake is both
I am Z but with slight Y characteristics(October 1999 here)
I think that Y kid culture started transitioning in Fall of 2004 into Z and Z kid culture really started in Early-Mid 2006. I remembered High School Musical very well and that was released in 2006 and I remembered when the Wii came out and everyone of my friends got one pretty much. Hannah Montana was huge and even some of my friends watched it. I also remembered when HDTVs were starting to appear everywhere in 2007-2008. Our family got a 42 inch Plasma HDTV in 2009 and a 32 inch HDTV in 2008.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/01/16 at 8:21 am


iTunes was popular in 2004/05 because you needed iTunes to sync your music to your iPod.


You needed iTunes to sync your music to your iPod even before 2004. Anybody who owned an iPod ever since 2001 knows that you need iTunes to sync. Hell, they even shown that on their first commercial.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 8:24 am


You needed iTunes to sync your music to your iPod even before 2004. Anybody who owned an iPod ever since 2001 knows that you need iTunes to sync. Hell, they even shown that on their first commercial.


But iTunes, along with the iPod, didn't get popular until 2004/2005. That's when they released the USB edition of the iPod and made it compatible for all computers instead of just the Mac like it was from 2001-2003. I think that was 2001's point.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/01/16 at 8:55 am


But iTunes, along with the iPod, didn't get popular until 2004/2005. That's when they released the USB edition of the iPod and made it compatible for all computers instead of just the Mac like it was from 2001-2003. I think that was 2001's point.


Well yeah. But my point was that anybody who owned an iPod (along with an iMac or MacBook) back in 2001-2003, has to use iTunes in order to get music for their iPod.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 8:58 am


Well yeah. But my point was that anybody who owned an iPod (along with a iMac or MacBook) back in 2001-2003, has to use iTunes in order to get music for their iPod.


Fair enough, but even Mac owners still used the mighty Discman as their usual musical listening device (or whatever you want to call it).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/01/16 at 9:01 am


Well yeah. But my point was that anybody who owned an iPod (along with an iMac or MacBook) back in 2001-2003, has to use iTunes in order to get music for their iPod.


Yeah you're right. But iPods, and consequently iTunes weren't popular back then.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/01/16 at 9:02 am


Fair enough, but even Mac owners still used the mighty Discman as their usual musical listening device (or whatever you want to call it).


Well, some Mac owners still used Walkmans (or Discmans, if you like to call them) because they probably find them to be better than iPods.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 9:05 am


Well, some Mac owners still used Walkmans (or Discmans, if you like to call them) because they probably find them to be better than iPods.


Can't argue with that point. But from 2001-2003 the iPod wasn't popular at all so everyone just had a discman in general.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/01/16 at 9:44 am

I remember jokes about the Mac in the early 2000s about how it would take 10 minutes to boot up and how the rainbow wheel for waiting was perpetual.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/01/16 at 9:51 am


I remember jokes about the Mac in the early 2000s about how it would take 10 minutes to boot up and how the rainbow wheel for waiting was perpetual.


I think Macs still boot for a while, and the rainbow wheel is still a pain in the ass when glitching.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 9:51 am

The Mac is the worst computer. Windows 98 PC's for life.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/01/16 at 9:57 am


I think Macs still boot for a while, and the rainbow wheel is still a pain in the ass when glitching.


Doesn't it boot up in a few seconds now? Back then you could make a warm cup of tea in the time it took Mac to boot up.  ;D

Even Windows used to take a while, it was closer to 2 minutes though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/01/16 at 10:01 am


Doesn't it boot up in a few seconds now? Back then you could make a warm cup of tea in the time it took Mac to boot up.  ;D

Even Windows used to take a while, it was closer to 2 minutes though.


Sometimes, it could take up to 30 seconds, but I agree with you. It did improve during the last 10 years. Even if I'm using a PC running Windows 7, it's not that bad using it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/01/16 at 10:48 am


Haha yes, we got ours for Christmas 2007. It was beautiful.



Excellent. O0 Yeah, when we got ours (to replace a big and bulky set), we enjoyed being able to watch sharp pictures that stretched across a wider screen; this included baseball games and other programs. When watching Dodger baseball games, we kinda felt like we were right there in the action! :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/01/16 at 3:19 pm


Can't argue with that point. But from 2001-2003 the iPod wasn't popular at all so everyone just had a discman in general.


I think I still have my Discman.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 3:35 pm


I think I still have my Discman.


I still have mine. I use it all the time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/01/16 at 3:52 pm


I still have mine. I use it all the time.


I haven't used mine in almost 20 years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 3:55 pm


I haven't used mine in almost 20 years.


Discmans are the 2nd superior way to listen to music on the go. Cassette Walkman's being the first.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/01/16 at 4:07 pm


I still have mine. I use it all the time.


That is definitely hipster.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/01/16 at 6:55 pm


That is definitely hipster.  ;D


>:( >:(

But is listening to albums like Does This Look Infected, Losing Streak, Teenage Politics and Act Your Age hipster? I don't think so! Those albums are too much for precious hipster ears!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/02/16 at 12:50 am


Doesn't it boot up in a few seconds now? Back then you could make a warm cup of tea in the time it took Mac to boot up.  ;D

I remember that with our very first computer, a Mac that we had in the 90s. Needless to say, it became obsolete VERY quickly.



Even Windows used to take a while, it was closer to 2 minutes though.

I had similar experiences with our first Windows machine.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/02/16 at 8:05 am


Discmans are the 2nd superior way to listen to music on the go. Cassette Walkman's being the first.


I let it collect dust.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/03/16 at 1:18 am


I let it collect dust.


:o :o :o :o

Howard! How could you! This is state of the art technology you're just letting go to waste!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/03/16 at 4:06 pm


:o :o :o :o

Howard! How could you! This is state of the art technology you're just letting go to waste!


I have no reason to use it, I might want to sell it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/03/16 at 5:37 pm

Here is the most recent Wikipedia definition of Millennials if you guys are interested:

"Millennials
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Generation Y" redirects here. For other uses, see Generation Y (disambiguation) and Millennials (disambiguation).
Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends; most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s."



You could read more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/03/16 at 5:39 pm


:o :o :o :o

Howard! How could you! This is state of the art technology you're just letting go to waste!


Lol Discmans were awesome, but nothing beats....

The Walkman!

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/walkman.jpg

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/03/16 at 5:52 pm


Discmans are the 2nd superior way to listen to music on the go. Cassette Walkman's being the first.


I remember my first Walkman that I got in 1993. Wait what generation am I again? Because this makes me sound old :-[

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/03/16 at 6:02 pm


I remember my first Walkman that I got in 1993. Wait what generation am I again? Because this makes me sound old :-[


That must've been awesome! The Discman was WAY before my time, heck I barely caught the tail end of Discmans. Anyways, I would say its tricky with early 80's babies as they are either end of X or start of Y. But personally I would say Late X for those born in 1980-Mid 1981, and Early Y for Late 1981-1983. Basically if you came of age if you came of age and or spent most of your 20's in the 90's, you'd be Gen X. Your on the tail end since you came of age in 98', but overall since you spent most of your H.S years in the Mid 90's which was pretty Gen X, then thats the Gen i'd put you in.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/03/16 at 6:22 pm


That must've been awesome! The Discman was WAY before my time, heck I barely caught the tail end of Discmans. Anyways, I would say its tricky with early 80's babies as they are either end of X or start of Y. But personally I would say Late X for those born in 1980-Mid 1981, and Early Y for Late 1981-1983. Basically if you came of age if you came of age and or spent most of your 20's in the 90's, you'd be Gen X. Your on the tail end since you came of age in 98', but overall since you spent most of your H.S years in the Mid 90's which was pretty Gen X, then thats the Gen i'd put you in.


Yes...it was awesome. But Walkmans were ridiculously bulky! It was hard to hide them in school. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/03/16 at 6:36 pm


Yes...it was awesome. But Walkmans were ridiculously bulky! It was hard to hide them in school. ;D


Lol I could somewhat imagine ;D I remember a similar situation with kids bringing Gameboys and Tamogotchis to school in the early 2000's. The teachers would usually confiscate them if kids were using them in class. Fortunately I never had mine taken away ::)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/03/16 at 7:09 pm

I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, and I actually like these topics, so I'm not complaining, but do you guys have some form of mild autism?

Like, you go into incredible detail about how such and such year was different from the other, how such and such show is a Gen Y show with a sprinkling of Z, or how this PC commercial released on December 31, 2003 at 11:49:30 PM starring Jesse McCartney exemplified the difference between the early 2000s and late 2000s as it was quite different from an updated version of that commercial starring Justin Bieber that was released on August 20, 2009 at 2:04:32 AM. ;D

I'm not complaining or being condescending or anything, it's just that I've never seen other sites go into this much detail about pop culture before.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/03/16 at 7:31 pm

I found this article the other day and I think its a very interesting read. I also agree with many of the author's points! Also if you have the chance read the comments as I found the opinions of some of the commentors pretty intriguing:

https://socalledmillennial.com/2013/11/05/why-are-the-generation-x-and-millennial-birth-years-so-muddled/



Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: TheKid99 on 02/03/16 at 9:13 pm



I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, and I actually like these topics, so I'm not complaining, but do you guys have some form of mild autism?

Like, you go into incredible detail about how such and such year was different from the other, how such and such show is a Gen Y show with a sprinkling of Z, or how this PC commercial released on December 31, 2003 at 11:49:30 PM starring Jesse McCartney exemplified the difference between the early 2000s and late 2000s as it was quite different from an updated version of that commercial starring Justin Bieber that was released on August 20, 2009 at 2:04:32 AM. ;D

I'm not complaining or being condescending or anything, it's just that I've never seen other sites go into this much detail about pop culture before.
Well actually interestingly enough I do have autism, but it is a pretty mild version of it. So your assumption about me is correct.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/03/16 at 9:37 pm


I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, and I actually like these topics, so I'm not complaining, but do you guys have some form of mild autism?

Like, you go into incredible detail about how such and such year was different from the other, how such and such show is a Gen Y show with a sprinkling of Z, or how this PC commercial released on December 31, 2003 at 11:49:30 PM starring Jesse McCartney exemplified the difference between the early 2000s and late 2000s as it was quite different from an updated version of that commercial starring Justin Bieber that was released on August 20, 2009 at 2:04:32 AM. ;D

I'm not complaining or being condescending or anything, it's just that I've never seen other sites go into this much detail about pop culture before.


I just respond to whatever is put on here. I hardly start topics on this website. Whenever people start bringing up opinions or debates I always join no matter what. I did have some listening and focus problems throughout elementary & middle school. I've settled down since 8th grade but even to this day I still have to really pay attention. I have an INTP personality. I think about things A LOT. I've always been that way. I'm really strong in mathematics. I've come a long way though.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/03/16 at 9:50 pm


I just respond to whatever is put on here. I hardly start topics on this website. Whenever people start bringing up opinions or debates I always join no matter what. I did have some listening and focus problems throughout elementary & middle school. I've settled down since 8th grade but even to this day I still have to really pay attention. I have an INTP personality. I think about things A LOT. I've always been that way. I'm really strong in mathematics. I've come a long way though.


This. Don't ever let labels define you, work hard enough to achieve whatever you want in life! For instance I'm technically an INFP (meaning I'm an introverted idealist) but that doesn't mean I have to be extremely upidy and optimistic all the time. I do have a practical side to me, so I take those personality types, learning defiecencies, and other medical & social issues/constructs with a grain of salt.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/03/16 at 10:31 pm


I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, and I actually like these topics, so I'm not complaining, but do you guys have some form of mild autism?

Like, you go into incredible detail about how such and such year was different from the other, how such and such show is a Gen Y show with a sprinkling of Z, or how this PC commercial released on December 31, 2003 at 11:49:30 PM starring Jesse McCartney exemplified the difference between the early 2000s and late 2000s as it was quite different from an updated version of that commercial starring Justin Bieber that was released on August 20, 2009 at 2:04:32 AM. ;D

I'm not complaining or being condescending or anything, it's just that I've never seen other sites go into this much detail about pop culture before.


I doubt a commercial that aired at 2AM could cause a cultural shift.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/03/16 at 10:52 pm

I was exaggerating. ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/03/16 at 11:11 pm


I was exaggerating. ;)
I was joking  :P

My dry humour doesn't seem to play on the Internet  :-X

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/03/16 at 11:16 pm

What I meant with that joke, though, is that if a commercial made in 2003 had an "updated" version in 2009, the differences between the early 2000s and late 2000s could easily be seen.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/03/16 at 11:20 pm


What I meant with that joke, though, is that if a commercial made in 2003 had an "updated" version in 2009, the differences between the early 2000s and late 2000s could easily be seen.


How can you not see the difference between Jesse McCartney and Justin Bieber  >:( Justin Bieber makes amazing music unlike you-don't-know-who.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/03/16 at 11:29 pm

Also I personally consider August 20, 2009 at 2:04:32 AM to be closer to early 2010s culture than late 2000s culture. Though I can't deny 2:04:32 AM had a a bit of a DREAMY vibe that 10:07:31 AM didn't,  but some were in REM while others are in deep sleep, it all depends on your individual experience idk.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/03/16 at 11:31 pm


How can you not see the difference between Jesse McCartney and Justin Bieber  >:( Justin Bieber makes amazing music unlike you-don't-know-who.

I see where you're going with this. ;D

To be honest, I've never actually heard any of Bieber's music, all I know is that the Internet has a raging hateon for him. I've heard people claim it's because of the drunk driving scandal, but to be honest, it seems like everyone hated him even before that. These seem to be the same people who, in the late 90s/early 00s, referred to *Nsync as "*Nsuck", or the Backstreet Boys as "F*gstreet Boys". Just insecure, "kewl", "classic rawk" older men who hate anything feminine or "gay".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/04/16 at 12:03 am


I have no reason to use it, I might want to sell it.


Howard! I don't know what to say about this! >:(


Lol Discmans were awesome, but nothing beats....

The Walkman!

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/walkman.jpg


The truth. My first portable music player was a tape Walkman.


I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, and I actually like these topics, so I'm not complaining, but do you guys have some form of mild autism?

Like, you go into incredible detail about how such and such year was different from the other, how such and such show is a Gen Y show with a sprinkling of Z, or how this PC commercial released on December 31, 2003 at 11:49:30 PM starring Jesse McCartney exemplified the difference between the early 2000s and late 2000s as it was quite different from an updated version of that commercial starring Justin Bieber that was released on August 20, 2009 at 2:04:32 AM. ;D

I'm not complaining or being condescending or anything, it's just that I've never seen other sites go into this much detail about pop culture before.


No way! I just have adult ADHD.

But if you must know, it was at December 21st, 2009 exactly at 10:15 PM that the real 2010's began. Anything before that is pure 2000's!


I see where you're going with this. ;D

To be honest, I've never actually heard any of Bieber's music, all I know is that the Internet has a raging hateon for him. I've heard people claim it's because of the drunk driving scandal, but to be honest, it seems like everyone hated him even before that. These seem to be the same people who, in the late 90s/early 00s, referred to *Nsync as "*Nsuck", or the Backstreet Boys as "F*gstreet Boys". Just insecure, "kewl", "classic rawk" older men who hate anything feminine or "gay".


I remember when everyone hated boybands from 1997-2003.

Late 90's/early 00's internet fun:

- limp bizkit r 4 ppl who r 2 cool for nsynch but still need sh!tty musik 2 listen 2

- da real song goez harder den dis. dis is deh gay version. what? r dey gay??

- sum 41 oil each uddr up n play hide da flashlite.

This is high class high brow humor right here.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/04/16 at 1:40 pm


I was exaggerating. ;)


Teehee ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/04/16 at 3:13 pm


Lol Discmans were awesome, but nothing beats....

The Walkman!

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/walkman.jpg


I loved The Walkman, back in the days when you could slide in a cassette tape and go on about your business.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/04/16 at 3:14 pm


Yes...it was awesome. But Walkmans were ridiculously bulky! It was hard to hide them in school. ;D


I put my Walkman on my belt buckle.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/04/16 at 3:16 pm


Howard! I don't know what to say about this!

Hey I need the money.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/04/16 at 3:40 pm


I put my Walkman on my belt buckle.


That was pretty much all we could do with it, and what made it portable. The same thing with portable CD players.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/04/16 at 7:19 pm


That was pretty much all we could do with it, and what made it portable. The same thing with portable CD players.

That way you could have both hands free. I did that too with my portable electronics.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/04/16 at 7:29 pm


That way you could have both hands free. I did that too with my portable electronics.


Most them had these fastening sections in the back where one could adjust them to anything....and that was it!



Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/05/16 at 12:40 am


Hey I need the money.


But Discmans are special... :\'(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/05/16 at 6:14 am


Most them had these fastening sections in the back where one could adjust them to anything....and that was it!


and you would have your hands free.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/05/16 at 6:15 am


But Discmans are special... :\'(


To me, they're "old hat".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/05/16 at 4:03 pm


To me, they're "old hat".


This makes me sad, Howard. Very sad. :(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/05/16 at 5:17 pm


But Discmans are special... :\'(

I never had one of those... but I think my parents had a similar device. I know because I used it once.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/05/16 at 7:24 pm


I never had one of those... but I think my parents had a similar device. I know because I used it once.


Do you remember the brand? I had a Panasonic Disc player as a spare.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/05/16 at 7:34 pm


This makes me sad, Howard. Very sad. :(


I may change my mind and save them, you never know when they could be a collector's item.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/05/16 at 7:59 pm


I may change my mind and save them, you never know when they could be a collector's item.


That is true! I still use my Disc or cassette walkman all the time. It's the most reliable if you ask me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/05/16 at 9:48 pm

Here's a post from Popsugar about the confusion between Gen Y & Gen Z. The author was actually born in 1994, and she identifies herself as an Y/Z Cusp, like I do:

http://www.popsugar.com/smart-living/What-Generation-Z-40064775

For people born in the mid 90's what's your opinion on this?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/05/16 at 9:58 pm


Here's a post from Popsugar about the confusion between Gen Y & Gen Z. The author was actually born in 1994, and she identifies herself as an Y/Z Cusp, like I do:

http://www.popsugar.com/smart-living/What-Generation-Z-40064775

For people born in the mid 90's what's your opinion on this?


Even though I'm not a Y/Z cusp since I was born in 1999, I do share a few similarities with this '94 baby.

1. We're internet experts.
9. We're stressed out, and often.
11. We're more accepting.

2 to 10 seems a bit off for me. I could relate to number 3, but since everybody on this site knows that I don't like today's YouTube, I digress.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/05/16 at 11:27 pm


Here's a post from Popsugar about the confusion between Gen Y & Gen Z. The author was actually born in 1994, and she identifies herself as an Y/Z Cusp, like I do:

http://www.popsugar.com/smart-living/What-Generation-Z-40064775

For people born in the mid 90's what's your opinion on this?

Well, I don't view myself as a Y/Z cusp, JUST LATE Y!!!!
I honestly think this girl is confusing Gen Z with Gen Y!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/05/16 at 11:28 pm


Even though I'm not a Y/Z cusp since I was born in 1999, I do share a few similarities with this '94 baby.

1. We're internet experts.
9. We're stressed out, and often.
11. We're more accepting.

2 to 10 seems a bit off for me. I could relate to number 3, but since everybody on this site that I don't like today's YouTube, I digress.


I see you as Y/Z cusp, and not early Z!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/05/16 at 11:55 pm

It's funny how I was watching ESPN First Take today, and Deion Sanders was there giving his opinion on Cam Newton's criticism and success, and he was talking about the difference between the 90's/early 00's players of the NFL like himself compared to the new generation of players who've been drafted pretty much throughout this decade, like Cam Newton, and he was calling us the Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. social media generation, and it goes to show you how Generation Y is really the first true generation who grew up into the internet, NOT Z. It's about how you grow up FULLY. Not a release date. I hate it when people say Generation Y was the last generation to have everything completely old school and Generation Z is the first to have everything completely tech savvy. That's not true. I know TONS of folks part of the Y generation who post tons of instagram pics too especially them girls lol. As well as early Z'ers as well. In reality, the second half of Gen Y and early Gen Z is hardly any different. It's a gradual transition. Also, as I've stated many times before, I disagree with Gen Z starting in 2000, 2001, or even 2002. That's way too late when almost everybody agrees that Gen Y was in full effect by 1981/82 born's. Generations can only last around 15-17 years at the max.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/05/16 at 11:57 pm


I see you as Y/Z cusp, and not early Z!


How come?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/06/16 at 12:42 am


It's funny how I was watching ESPN First Take today, and Deion Sanders was there giving his opinion on Cam Newton's criticism and success, and he was talking about the difference between the 90's/early 00's players of the NFL like himself compared to the new generation of players who've been drafted pretty much throughout this decade, like Cam Newton, and he was calling us the Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. social media generation, and it goes to show you how Generation Y is really the first true generation who grew up into the internet, NOT Z. It's about how you grow up FULLY. Not a release date. I hate it when people say Generation Y was the last generation to have everything completely old school and Generation Z is the first to have everything completely tech savvy. That's not true. I know TONS of folks part of the Y generation who post tons of instagram pics too especially them girls lol. As well as early Z'ers as well. In reality, the second half of Gen Y and early Gen Z is hardly any different. It's a gradual transition. Also, as I've stated many times before, I disagree with Gen Z starting in 2000, 2001, or even 2002. That's way too late when almost everybody agrees that Gen Y was in full effect by 1981/82 born's. Generations can only last around 15-17 years at the max.

I would say that when it comes to childhoods, Gen Y and possibly early Gen Z were "old school" (i.e., not really immersed in social media, no iPhones in elementary school).

However, teen and adult years are much different. Gen Y and Gen Z both seem to be immersed in social media, selfies, Instagram, bearded hipster culture, "Netflix and Chill", etc. as adults. The Simpsons even did an episode where Apu's 25-year-old son comes to visit, and he's always taking selfies and dressing like a hipster.

When it comes to adult use of social media, people born in 1989 (Y) and 1995 (Z) are not really different at all. However, early Y-ers (1980-1984) might feel more distant from this culture.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 12:47 am


It's funny how I was watching ESPN First Take today, and Deion Sanders was there giving his opinion on Cam Newton's criticism and success, and he was talking about the difference between the 90's/early 00's players of the NFL like himself compared to the new generation of players who've been drafted pretty much throughout this decade, like Cam Newton, and he was calling us the Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. social media generation, and it goes to show you how Generation Y is really the first true generation who grew up into the internet, NOT Z. It's about how you grow up FULLY. Not a release date. I hate it when people say Generation Y was the last generation to have everything completely old school and Generation Z is the first to have everything completely tech savvy. That's not true. I know TONS of folks part of the Y generation who post tons of instagram pics too especially them girls lol. As well as early Z'ers as well. In reality, the second half of Gen Y and early Gen Z is hardly any different. It's a gradual transition. Also, as I've stated many times before, I disagree with Gen Z starting in 2000, 2001, or even 2002. That's way too late when almost everybody agrees that Gen Y was in full effect by 1981/82 born's. Generations can only last around 15-17 years at the max.

Yep Generation X was pretty much the last to have things old schoolish!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 12:48 am


I would say that when it comes to childhoods, Gen Y and possibly early Gen Z were "old school" (i.e., not really immersed in social media, no iPhones in elementary school).

However, teen and adult years are much different. Gen Y and Gen Z both seem to be immersed in social media, selfies, Instagram, bearded hipster culture, "Netflix and Chill", etc. as adults. The Simpsons even did an episode where Apu's 25-year-old son comes to visit, and he's always taking selfies and dressing like a hipster.

When it comes to adult use of social media, people born in 1989 (Y) and 1995 (Z) are not really different at all. However, early Y-ers (1980-1984) might feel more distant from this culture.

You think 1995 is Z?! ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/06/16 at 12:51 am

I think it's more late Y, but 99.9% of businesses and marketers think it's the beginning of Z, despite what some may claim.

Just like many older people would prefer 1980-1982 to be Gen X and not Gen Y, despite what the majority of marketers say.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 12:51 am


I think it's more late Y, but 99.9% of businesses and marketers think it's the beginning of Z, despite what some may claim.

Just like many older people would prefer 1980-1982 to be Gen X and not Gen Y, despite what the majority of marketers say.

1980 and most of 1981 are at the tail end of X. late 1981 and 1982 are the first Yers. Also 1985ers and 1986ers are early Yers too their just on the cusp of core.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/06/16 at 12:58 am


1980 and most of 1981 are at the tail end of X. late 1981 and 1982 are the first Yers. Also 1985ers and 1986ers are early Yers too their just on the cusp of core.

I agree with your opinion, but that's not how the people who invented these terms think. They don't have things like "generational cusps" or "transitions". They just clump everyone born in a set of years together, no matter how different they may be.

You never hear marketers say something like "1995-97 births are Gen Z with a Y childhood and slight influence, obviously different from Zers currently in elementary school". Instead, you always hear them say "Gen Z, the generation born from 1995 to 2010, never knew a world without Internet, had iPhones in kindergarten, took selfies of themselves as babies, etc. etc. etc."

Broad strokes get fences painted faster, and products sold faster. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/06/16 at 6:11 am


Well, I don't view myself as a Y/Z cusp, JUST LATE Y!!!!
I honestly think this girl is confusing Gen Z with Gen Y!


TBH, that's probably the reason why I relate with it much more than other 'Gen Z' articles I've seen recently. It seems like the traits that she suggest are in reality for the most part Late Y Traits. For instance in the late 00's/early 10's most Gen Zer's were merely only kids and or tweens. But someone born in 1995/6 was in their teens for the most part. I think that is a Generation gap IMO, because Yers (including late Yer's like myself and others) grew up during a time of excess and Came of age during despair. For older Yer's born from 1981/2-1986 it was post 9/11 and the despair and fear the country felt at the time even though economically things were still pretty good for the most part, for core Yer's born from 1987-1991 it was the Great Recession mixed in with the War on Terror at its peak, and for Late Yer's born from 1992-1997 it is the stagnate recovery in the 2010's as we speak and renewed tensions in the Middle East & Russia. Gen Zer's seemed to have had grew up during the recession as kids, thus their outlook on life is much different than Millennials who grew up during the booming economy of the 1990's & 2000's.


It's funny how I was watching ESPN First Take today, and Deion Sanders was there giving his opinion on Cam Newton's criticism and success, and he was talking about the difference between the 90's/early 00's players of the NFL like himself compared to the new generation of players who've been drafted pretty much throughout this decade, like Cam Newton, and he was calling us the Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. social media generation, and it goes to show you how Generation Y is really the first true generation who grew up into the internet, NOT Z. It's about how you grow up FULLY. Not a release date. I hate it when people say Generation Y was the last generation to have everything completely old school and Generation Z is the first to have everything completely tech savvy. That's not true. I know TONS of folks part of the Y generation who post tons of instagram pics too especially them girls lol. As well as early Z'ers as well. In reality, the second half of Gen Y and early Gen Z is hardly any different. It's a gradual transition. Also, as I've stated many times before, I disagree with Gen Z starting in 2000, 2001, or even 2002. That's way too late when almost everybody agrees that Gen Y was in full effect by 1981/82 born's. Generations can only last around 15-17 years at the max.


We seemed to have had grew up during the transitional phase in technology, thus we could relate with the old school and the new school equally. For instance, we all have memories of game cartdriges, VHS Tapes, CDs (or for older Y's cassetes), CRT TVs, dial up internet, etc. That is most definitely old school by today's standards! But at the same time we were young enough that we adapted to the new technology much quicker than our older peers.

So I do agree somewhat that Millennials (which included us as well) were the last to grow up old school, while we came of age and or spent our youth (age 11-22) period when technology was much more digital thus we adapted to new technology easier than previous generations. Hence why you see 20 somethings taking a million selfies and posting them on instagram, or why most popular YouTubers these days are in the 20's age range as well. We're Analog/Digital Hybrids, and I'm perfectly fine with that


I agree with your opinion, but that's not how the people who invented these terms think. They don't have things like "generational cusps" or "transitions". They just clump everyone born in a set of years together, no matter how different they may be.

You never hear marketers say something like "1995-97 births are Gen Z with a Y childhood and slight influence, obviously different from Zers currently in elementary school". Instead, you always hear them say "Gen Z, the generation born from 1995 to 2010, never knew a world without Internet, had iPhones in kindergarten, took selfies of themselves as babies, etc. etc. etc."

Broad strokes get fences painted faster, and products sold faster. ;D


Hence why I take these articles with a grain of salt. A lot people tend to forget that just 15-20 years ago, people born as early as 1975 were being considered Millennials, now in 2016 we now know thats completely BS ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/06/16 at 6:25 am


Hence why I take these articles with a grain of salt. A lot people tend to forget that just 15-20 years ago, people born as early as 1975 were being considered Millennials, now in 2016 we now know thats completely BS ;D

I'm not saying those articles who say 1995 is Z are necessarily right, but it seems like the reason they moved it down to there (as opposed to 2000-2001, which I remember it used to be and is still used by a few articles) is because the Internet became popular in that year.

It's arbitrary, but again, all generations are arbitrary. "Millennials", for example, were named after the graduating Class of 2000, even though the members of that class were probably not very different from the Class of 1999 at all.

It's not like some born on January 1st 1982 was suddenly a bearded glasses-wearing SJW iPhone preening hipster and everyone before that was a grunge-addicted flannel-wearing slacker. It's just generalizations to sell products to people and keep track of demographics easily.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 02/06/16 at 8:21 am

I have seen some articles saying that Millennials ended in 2000, which it makes more sense, placing all the people born in the 90s in one generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/06/16 at 10:22 am


I have seen some articles saying that Millennials ended in 2000, which it makes more sense, placing all the people born in the 90s in one generation.


I agree with this for the most part, but most sources these days seem to end it somewhere between 1995-1997...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/06/16 at 10:34 am


I would say that when it comes to childhoods, Gen Y and possibly early Gen Z were "old school" (i.e., not really immersed in social media, no iPhones in elementary school).

However, teen and adult years are much different. Gen Y and Gen Z both seem to be immersed in social media, selfies, Instagram, bearded hipster culture, "Netflix and Chill", etc. as adults. The Simpsons even did an episode where Apu's 25-year-old son comes to visit, and he's always taking selfies and dressing like a hipster.

When it comes to adult use of social media, people born in 1989 (Y) and 1995 (Z) are not really different at all. However, early Y-ers (1980-1984) might feel more distant from this culture.


This is why I hate being a young adult in this era.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/06/16 at 10:42 am


I see you as Y/Z cusp, and not early Z!


Seriously, how are 1999 babies Y/Z cusps?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/06/16 at 11:00 am


Here's a post from Popsugar about the confusion between Gen Y & Gen Z. The author was actually born in 1994, and she identifies herself as an Y/Z Cusp, like I do:

http://www.popsugar.com/smart-living/What-Generation-Z-40064775

For people born in the mid 90's what's your opinion on this?


She seems a bit dense to me. Her writing is very one dimensional, only covering the (very exaggerated) positive traits of her generation. And even with things that should be negative traits,she tries to pass off as "positive". Being addicted to social media and internet use, as stated in the first paragraph, is one of the problems I have with society today. Yet she somehow take's this with pride. Not to mention she acts as if making Vines is something to be proud of. At this point, it was really hard for me to have any respect for her.

She also tries to claim that text messaging is better than communicating in person, which another issue I have with today's society. There are also things like "looking up to Youtubers". That's when I realized there must be something wrong with this girl's brain. She either seems unrealistically positive, or claims negative traits as positive ones. Oh, and she's a possible SJW. The link she sent in regards to activist movements made me raise an eyebrow.

Not to mention at times, she seems to confuse Y with Z. It's possible that she views those born in the mid 90s as "Z", which pretty stupid. She seems like a robotic tool, whom is immersed in the popular way of thinking. Just a caricature of the 2010s. Sorry if I seem harsh on her, but I just had to let this out there.

Oh yeah, and this same girl posted this godawful article:
http://www.popsugar.com/love/How-Turn-Men-Feminists-37950012

This pretty much confirms she's a robotic tool.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/06/16 at 11:07 am


This is why I hate being a young adult in this era.


There's so much other variety out there I could care about though. Hipster fashion or instagram selfies shouldn't be the final be all of how our culture is. You gotta focus on the positive that's out there. You have great shows for the youth and adults on TV like The Flash, The Walking Dead, Agents of Shield, Brooklyn Nine Nine, Empire, etc. Look at all the variety of shows you can find on Netflix or Hulu. The mainstream music since the second half of 2015 was surprising good for me, although, still not my favorite of the decade. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has been going on well, and I'm looking forward to the new Deadpool movie coming out although I don't know if it's technically part of the universe since Disney doesn't do R movies. If anyone's a huge fan of sports teams like me, especially college football and the NFL, that's something you'll always be excited for year in and year out. Seeing how well your team does and focusing on the drafts and free agencies each year. Just go outside each morning, run several miles, set up a routine or go to the gym and start a workout plan. It really helped me out before although I'll admit I gotta get back in shape pronto.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/06/16 at 11:17 am


There's so much other variety out there I could care about though. Hipster fashion or instagram selfies shouldn't be the final be all of how our culture is. You gotta focus on the positive that's out there. You have great shows for the youth and adults on TV like The Flash, The Walking Dead, Agents of Shield, Brooklyn Nine Nine, Empire, etc. Look at all the variety of shows you can find on Netflix or Hulu. The mainstream music since the second half of 2015 was surprising good for me, although, still not my favorite of the decade. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has been going on well, and I'm looking forward to the new Deadpool movie coming out although I don't know if it's technically part of the universe since Disney doesn't do R movies. If anyone's a huge fan of sports teams like me, especially college football and the NFL, that's something you'll always be excited for year in and year out. Seeing how well your team does and focusing on the drafts and free agencies each year. Just go outside each morning, run several miles, set up a routine or go to the gym and start a workout plan. It really helped me out before although I'll admit I gotta get back in shape pronto.


I'm burnt out when it comes to comic book movies, for the most part. I feel like T.V. is overhyped, and there's too much focus on making everything "serialized". Sure there are shows I like, but most of them just feel the same to me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/06/16 at 11:32 am


I'm burnt out when it comes tocomic book movies, for the most part. I feel like T.V. is overhyped, and there's too much focus on making everything "serialized". Sure there are shows I like, but most of them just feel the same to me.


I understand where you're coming from. I've enjoyed a lot of the mainstream culture so far from 2007 and onwards, but not all of course. If I had a choice to choose when I was born I'd choose 1976 to experience the kid culture of the 80's and the mainstream culture throughout the 90's. Or 1981 to experience the kid culture of the late 80's/early 90's and the mainstream culture throughout the 90's to early 00's. Just think about it back in our parents' childhood when mostly everything on TV were mostly family sitcoms and news, cartoons could only be shown on Saturday mornings, and I'm not so sure on how accessible the early generation of video games were back then. I think our generation takes a lot for granted which I'm guilty of myself. We will always have the choice to go outside, interact with one another, or get a workout in the gym, whenever we want to no matter how more advanced technology becomes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/06/16 at 11:33 am

I want to discuss this with my boyfriend! He's 6 years younger than me, born in 86. That makes him Y doesn't it? I know his kid and teen cultures were different than mine...but we kinda don't care, lol!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 02/06/16 at 12:14 pm


I want to discuss this with my boyfriend! He's 6 years younger than me, born in 86. That makes him Y doesn't it? I know his kid and teen cultures were different than mine...but we kinda don't care, lol!


You are Generation X, he is Millennial. His kid and teen cultures were very different from yours. The change in birth patterns, attitudes towards babies and young children, and the way in which popular culture played out and evolved and changed made two people born only four years apart have very different experiences in life. Someone born in 1981 has practically nothing in common with someone born in 1985. As a matter of fact, 1985 babies culturally have more in common with someone born in 1989 than 1981. 1981 is a '90s teen, whereas 1985 and 1989 are '00s teens. An early '00s high school experience was much more like a mid '00s one than a late '90s one. It's like the Silent Generation/Baby Boomer gap. Such a short period of space yet such an enormous difference in attitude and mindset and tastes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 12:47 pm


You are Generation X, he is Millennial. His kid and teen cultures were very different from yours. The change in birth patterns, attitudes towards babies and young children, and the way in which popular culture played out and evolved and changed made two people born only four years apart have very different experiences in life. Someone born in 1981 has practically nothing in common with someone born in 1985. As a matter of fact, 1985 babies culturally have more in common with someone born in 1989 than 1981. 1981 is a '90s teen, whereas 1985 and 1989 are '00s teens. An early '00s high school experience was much more like a mid '00s one than a late '90s one. It's like the Silent Generation/Baby Boomer gap. Such a short period of space yet such an enormous difference in attitude and mindset and tastes.

So do you think a 1991 born has nothing in common with me, and a 1999er more in common with me?! ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/06/16 at 1:20 pm


So do you think a 1991 born has nothing in common with me, and a 1999er more in common with me?! ???


I don't really think I have a lot in common with you. Aside from the mid 2000s kid stuff, that's just about it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 02/06/16 at 1:20 pm


So do you think a 1991 born has nothing in common with me, and a 1999er more in common with me?! ???


I'm only a month younger than you, and I don't really relate to either on a large scale. People born in 1991 will be turning 25 this year, and 1999 babies will turn 17. I'm 20, and I will be so until the end of November. For me personally, I do relate more to 16-17 year olds than 23-24 year olds. It depends on one's upbringing really.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 02/06/16 at 2:02 pm


Well, I don't view myself as a Y/Z cusp, JUST LATE Y!!!!
I honestly think this girl is confusing Gen Z with Gen Y!


I do. I don't relate to stereotypical millennial traits at all, and the homeland generation is too young to develop any stereotypes. I am very different from someone born in 1992. I have much more in common with someone born in 1998.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/06/16 at 2:25 pm


I do. I don't relate to stereotypical millennial traits at all, and the homeland generation is too young to develop any stereotypes. I am very different from someone born in 1992. I have much more in common with someone born in 1998.


I agree, I'll be 20 in three days, and I relate to 1998 born's as evenly as 1994 born's from a childhood perspective. I relate to 1993 born's as evenly as 1999. There are some childhood stuff that I have in common with 1992 but not all, and it's a no brainer that I relate more to 1997 & 1998 born's because they're only a year or two part while 1992 born's are four years apart.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/06/16 at 2:53 pm


That is true! I still use my Disc or cassette walkman all the time. It's the most reliable if you ask me.


and it's portable too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 2:55 pm

We'll, I view late 1997ers, 1998ers and even 1999ers as younger siblings I NEVER saw them as part of my chorot like 1993ers, 1994ers and 1996ers/early 97ers

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 3:03 pm


I do. I don't relate to stereotypical millennial traits at all, and the homeland generation is too young to develop any stereotypes. I am very different from someone born in 1992. I have much more in common with someone born in 1998.

A 1992er feels kinda like my older sibling and a 1998er feels like my younger sibling so it's a no win scenario for me lol.

And BTW what's strictly late gen y to you?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 3:04 pm


I agree, I'll be 20 in three days, and I relate to 1998 born's as evenly as 1994 born's from a childhood perspective. I relate to 1993 born's as evenly as 1999. There are some childhood stuff that I have in common with 1992 but not all, and it's a no brainer that I relate more to 1997 & 1998 born's because they're only a year or two part while 1992 born's are four years apart.

As a 1995er and NOT a 96er, I relate to 93ers much more than 1999ers, WITHOUT question! I really don't have that much in common with a 1999er.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/06/16 at 3:07 pm


Do you remember the brand? I had a Panasonic Disc player as a spare.

No, I don't think that was it. If we can find it somewhere (assuming we still have it), then I can check.

We've bought new portable electronic things in recent years, and I can't always keep track of 'em.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/06/16 at 3:07 pm


A 1992er feels kinda like my older sibling and a 1998er feels like my younger sibling so it's a no win scenario for me lol.

And BTW what's strictly late gen y to you?


Good question, I'd like to know his opinion on that too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 3:12 pm


Good question, I'd like to know his opinion on that too.

Yeah I can see where he is kinda coming from. 92ers were exiting their prime teen years right when I was entering mine, but the same could be said about 98ers too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/06/16 at 3:13 pm


As a 1995er and NOT a 96er, I relate to 93ers much more than 1999ers, WITHOUT question! I really don't have that much in common with a 1999er.


Well, if you look at the whole cohort of 1993 born's, most of them were in the Class of 2011, while the late part of them were in the Class of 2012, so that was two years in high school we had with them. As for 1999 born's, most of them are juniors in high school right now who were only in high school for one year with our group while the late part of 1999 are currently sophomores and we were graduated by the time they came. So I guess you can say that the late 1995/early 1996 born's relate more to 1993 than 1999, however, late 1996/early 1997 would relate more to 1999 than 1993.

Just to let you know, it's common sense that me as an early 96 born is going to relate more to late 95'ers than late 96'ers. Not saying that I don't relate to any of them, but I grew up in the Class of 2014 with September 1995-August 1996 born's. Everybody born in late 95 and early 96 are 20 for most of this year. Everybody born in early 95 are 21 for most of this year, and those born in late 96 are 19 for most of this year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 3:17 pm


Well, if you look at the whole cohort of 1993 born's, most of them were in the Class of 2011, while the late part of them were in the Class of 2012, so that was two years in high school we had with them. As for 1999 born's, most of them are juniors in high school right now who were only in high school for one year with our group while the late part of 1999 are currently sophomores and we were graduated by the time they came. So I guess you can say that the late 1995/early 1996 born's relate more to 1993 than 1999, however, late 1996/early 1997 would relate more to 1999 than 1993.

Just to let you know, it's common sense that me as an early 96 born is going to relate more to late 95'ers than late 96'ers. Not saying that I don't relate to any of them, but I grew up in the Class of 2014 with September 1995-August 1996 born's. Everybody born in late 95 and early 96 are 20 for most of this year. Everybody born in early 95 are 21 for most of this year, and those born in late 96 are 19 for most of this year.

Yes! I'm glad we're finally discussing adolescent years and not childhood! Lol
If we're talking childhood then it's not even up for a debate I relate to 1991ers more than 1999ers and 1993ers more than 1999ers obviously. But the adolescent years is a WHOLE different story.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 3:21 pm


Well, if you look at the whole cohort of 1993 born's, most of them were in the Class of 2011, while the late part of them were in the Class of 2012, so that was two years in high school we had with them. As for 1999 born's, most of them are juniors in high school right now who were only in high school for one year with our group while the late part of 1999 are currently sophomores and we were graduated by the time they came. So I guess you can say that the late 1995/early 1996 born's relate more to 1993 than 1999, however, late 1996/early 1997 would relate more to 1999 than 1993.

Just to let you know, it's common sense that me as an early 96 born is going to relate more to late 95'ers than late 96'ers. Not saying that I don't relate to any of them, but I grew up in the Class of 2014 with September 1995-August 1996 born's. Everybody born in late 95 and early 96 are 20 for most of this year. Everybody born in early 95 are 21 for most of this year, and those born in late 96 are 19 for most of this year.

My class was ODD it was half 95ers and half 96ers. As a matter of fact if you take away the people that transferred there were more 95ers than 96ers at one point I think! It was CRAZY! :D :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/06/16 at 8:34 pm


Yes! I'm glad we're finally discussing adolescent years and not childhood! Lol
If we're talking childhood then it's not even up for a debate I relate to 1991ers more than 1999ers and 1993ers more than 1999ers obviously. But the adolescent years is a WHOLE different story.


I was a teenager from 2006 - 2012, which is why I feel Y/Z cusp. I'm both a 2000s teen and a 2010s teen!

My favourite school year was 2009-10 school year, the one where we thought the world was going to end because the Hadron Collider was going to make a black hole LOL.

Being a 2000s teen was really miserable, people were homophobic and if you were good at math you would get bullied. I loved the "kumbaya" moment we all had in 2009-10 school year when the nerds took over school and bullying became super uncool. It was the only high school year I didn't feel sub-human. I "experienced" both but I liked being a 2010s teen more, by far. Of course I graduated in 2010 and got a full-time job, so I'm not sure if I'm young enough to be a full blown 2010s teen.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 9:05 pm


I was a teenager from 2006 - 2012, which is why I feel Y/Z cusp. I'm both a 2000s teen and a 2010s teen!

My favourite school year was 2009-10 school year, the one where we thought the world was going to end because the Hadron Collider was going to make a black hole LOL.

Being a 2000s teen was really miserable, people were homophobic and if you were good at math you would get bullied. I loved the "kumbaya" moment we all had in 2009-10 school year when the nerds took over school and bullying became super uncool. It was the only high school year I didn't feel sub-human. I "experienced" both but I liked being a 2010s teen more, by far. Of course I graduated in 2010 and got a full-time job, so I'm not sure if I'm young enough to be a full blown 2010s teen.

Yeah, I was mainly a teen in the early 2010s, with a few during the first half of the mid 2010s(2014/15ish). So I actually don't consider myself a true 10s teen. I will have half teens and half 20s years in the 2010s, so it's a no win scenario.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 9:13 pm


I was a teenager from 2006 - 2012, which is why I feel Y/Z cusp. I'm both a 2000s teen and a 2010s teen!


You're SOLID late Y to me, and not Y/Z cusp. Interesting that a 1993 born is saying this. :o ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/06/16 at 10:02 pm


You're SOLID late Y to me, and not Y/Z cusp. Interesting that a 1993 born is saying this. :o ???


Maybe "Y/Z cusp" is the wrong word. But I relate to both Gen Y and Gen Z. I feel like a digital native because I've had Internet since I was 4, but I know most people my age didn't get Internet until they were 7 to 10ish, so while I never knew a world without Internet, it's not like I can't imagine a world without it.

Or speaking in teenage terms, I was a teen in the 2000s. I even lost my job during the recession. I was in high school when the most popular way of talking to friends outside of school was MSN. That's Gen Y. But I was also in high school when LGBT acceptance was a given, and being a nerd made you a lot of friends instead of a lot of enemies, when Facebook/Twitter took over. That's Gen Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/06/16 at 10:31 pm


Maybe "Y/Z cusp" is the wrong word. But I relate to both Gen Y and Gen Z. I feel like a digital native because I've had Internet since I was 4, but I know most people my age didn't get Internet until they were 7 to 10ish, so while I never knew a world without Internet, it's not like I can't imagine a world without it.

Or speaking in teenage terms, I was a teen in the 2000s. I even lost my job during the recession. I was in high school when the most popular way of talking to friends outside of school was MSN. That's Gen Y. But I was also in high school when LGBT acceptance was a given, and being a nerd made you a lot of friends instead of a lot of enemies, when Facebook/Twitter took over. That's Gen Z.


It's core/late Y too, especially the latter half. A large portion of Gen Y had Myspace, Facebook, and even Twitter and Instagram now as apart of their generation whether they want to admit it or not. Just look at the previous comment I posted about Generation X being the last full generation to grow up fully old school throughout the kid, teen, and young adult stage combined. Early Gen Y is an exception though. Do you realize that the peak of Gen Z is barely out of elementary school right? Heck a lot still in there. Yet look how long social media has already been big.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/06/16 at 10:39 pm


It's core/late Y too, especially the latter half. A large portion of Gen Y had Myspace, Facebook, and even Twitter and Instagram now as apart of their generation whether they want to admit it or not. Just look at the previous comment I posted about Generation X being the last full generation to grow up fully old school throughout the kid, teen, and young adult stage combined. Early Gen Y is an exception though. Do you realize that the peak of Gen Z is barely out of elementary school right? Heck a lot still in there. Yet look how long social media has already been big.


To me core Y is 1984 - 1990, the people who were on university campuses during the 2008 Obama election and were protesting in Occupy etc. 1990 mostly graduated in class of 2008, if I'm correct, so they would not be in high school when the Facebook takeover happened in 2008-09 school year (though if I remember correctly, in the South, late 1990 borns would graduate in 2009?). 1991 is the transition out of core Y year to me, since they graduated 2009. And I generally agree with the Toon's Third Principle (yeah, I'm giving it a name*) that anyone who graduated in the 2010s is late Y at the earliest.

*Toon's First Principle is you have a mostly identical childhood to anyone born +/- 2 years from you.
*Toon's Second Principle is you should be able to easily relate to anyone born +/- 3 years from you, or else you're a real snob or don't have many friends.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 10:41 pm


To me core Y is 1984 - 1990, the people who were on university campuses during the 2008 Obama election and were protesting in Occupy etc. 1990 mostly graduated in class of 2008, if I'm correct, so they would not be in high school when the Facebook takeover happened in 2008-09 school year (though if I remember correctly, in the South, late 1990 borns would graduate in 2009?). 1991 is the transition out of core Y year to me, since they graduated 2009. And I generally agree with the Toon's Third Principle (yeah, I'm giving it a name*) that anyone who graduated in the 2010s is late Y at the earliest.

*Toon's First Principle is you have a mostly identical childhood to anyone born +/- 2 years from you.
*Toon's Second Principle is you should be able to easily relate to anyone born +/- 3 years from you, or else you're a real snob or don't have many friends.

Mid 80s babies are on the cusp of early and core. But they are still early like late 1981-1983ers.
Late 80s babies/VERY EARLY 90s babies(90/91) are the meat and potatoes of Gen Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/06/16 at 10:58 pm


Mid 80s babies are on the cusp of early and core. But they are still early like late 1981-1983ers.
Late 80s babies/VERY EARLY 90s babies(90/91) are the meat and potatoes of Gen Y.


Why do you think so?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/06/16 at 11:14 pm


Why do you think so?

That's EASY! First of all, they were old enough to vote in the 2004 election, most millennials first big election was when Obama got elected in 08. Second of all they became teens during the late 90s. and the 90s was mainly a Gen X decade even though the very late 90s ushered in the Gen Y culture.  Also they were children of the TMNT, NES, Neon, Sega Genesis, EARLY Nick, and HW Bush early 90s era. But they are also kids of the MMPR, SNES, Classic Nickelodeon, Clinton first term, Gangsta rap, and Grunge era.
Most importantly their teen years were during the Y2K phenomenon, Post 9/11 paronia, Glam rap, Nu metal years
Not the Myspace, 50 Cent, Crank and Snap rap, Metacore, early YouTube, Bush rebellion years which define core Gen Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/06/16 at 11:41 pm


That's EASY! First of all, they were old enough to vote in the 2004 election, most millennials first big election was when Obama got elected in 08. Second of all they became teens during the late 90s. and the 90s was mainly a Gen X decade even though the very late 90s ushered in the Gen Y culture.  Also they were children of the TMNT, NES, Neon, Sega Genesis, EARLY Nick, and HW Bush early 90s era. But they are also kids of the MMPR, SNES, Classic Nickelodeon, Clinton first term, Gangsta rap, and Grunge era.
Most importantly their teen years were during the Y2K phenomenon, Post 9/11 paronia, Glam rap, Nu metal years
Not the Myspace, 50 Cent, Crank and Snap rap, Metacore, early YouTube, Bush rebellion years which define core Gen Y.


But you said 1991 was Core Y, yet they were too young to vote for Obama the first time. They had to wait until 2012, when 1992-1994 borns also got to vote for him.

1984-1986 were old enough to vote during the 2004 election which was a pretty lackluster election, but they were still young enough to get into the heart of Obamamania. 18 - 24 is what most describe as youth voters.

I think most people agree that the late 90s was Generation Y culture for teens/adults. People born 1980-1983 were teens during the mid-90s, which makes them early Millennials to me. But 1984 are late 90s teens, 1985/1986 are early 2000s teens when MSN/AOL took over. They were the perfect age for Gen Y kid culture to be already established, and perfect age for Gen Y teen culture to already be established.

I was a teenager during "Myspace, 50 Cent, Crank and Snap rap, Metacore, early YouTube, Bush rebellion years", but we all agree that 1993 is anywhere between late Y and pioneer Z, far away from the core Y years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/07/16 at 12:02 am


But you said 1991 was Core Y, yet they were too young to vote for Obama the first time. They had to wait until 2012, when 1992-1994 borns also got to vote for him.

1984-1986 were old enough to vote during the 2004 election which was a pretty lackluster election, but they were still young enough to get into the heart of Obamamania. 18 - 24 is what most describe as youth voters.

I think most people agree that the late 90s was Generation Y culture for teens/adults. People born 1980-1983 were teens during the mid-90s, which makes them early Millennials to me. But 1984 are late 90s teens, 1985/1986 are early 2000s teens when MSN/AOL took over. They were the perfect age for Gen Y kid culture to be already established, and perfect age for Gen Y teen culture to already be established.

I was a teenager during "Myspace, 50 Cent, Crank and Snap rap, Metacore, early YouTube, Bush rebellion years", but we all agree that 1993 is anywhere between late Y and pioneer Z, far away from the core Y years.

Most 1980ers and 1981 ers graduated in 1998 and 1999. The class of 2000(late 1981/1982) is the first I consider to be millennial. I'm sticking by that one.
Also the early 2000s youth culture was Early Gen Y, NOT Core. and you were a teen during the crank/snap rap era, Myspace, and Metacore years, but you were also a teen during the Electropop, ringtone rap, early Obama years as well..

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 12:08 am


Most 1980ers and 1981 ers graduated in 1998 and 1999. The class of 2000(late 1981/1982) is the first I consider to be millennial. I'm sticking by that one.


1980 is strange to me. It doesn't look Gen X, because they were still teens when the Internet became big, which is very Gen Y. When I think Gen X, I think people who were at least in the workplace or in university when the Internet became big. At the same time, they didn't do much IM'ing in high school in 1997-98 school year. It's a X/Y cusp.

Class of 1999 can be comfortably Gen Y though. 1998-99 high school year is Y. The Internet was well established by then, the pop culture was Gen Y.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 12:18 am


Most 1980ers and 1981 ers graduated in 1998 and 1999. The class of 2000(late 1981/1982) is the first I consider to be millennial. I'm sticking by that one.
Also the early 2000s youth culture was Early Gen Y, NOT Core. and you were a teen during the crank/snap rap era, Myspace, and Metacore years, but you were also a teen during the Electropop, ringtone rap, early Obama years as well..

Late 90s is early Y to me. Once you go post-boy band and Y2K era into the Iraq War era is when it gets core Millennial to me.

Ringtone rap and Myspace era are the same. Don't remind me!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/07/16 at 12:46 am


Late 90s is early Y to me. Once you go post-boy band and Y2K era into the Iraq War era is when it gets core Millennial to me.

Ringtone rap and Myspace era are the same. Don't remind me!

Yep, I should've clarified that more, The VERY late 90s and early 00s are both Early Gen Y. lol



Also, I was basically saying that the Myspace era  and latter Bush years were different than the electropop and early Obama years.
Basically I'm saying is you were a teen during the late 2000s and early 2010s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/07/16 at 12:52 am

I always felt like the 1998-2003 era still had some Gen X leftovers despite being predominately early millennial.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 1:07 am


I always felt like the 1998-2003 era still had some Gen X leftovers despite being predominately early millennial.

2003 I'd say politically was very Core Y because you had the Iraq War that year. I'm not sure about 1998-2002 having Gen X, you'd probably know more about that :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/07/16 at 1:13 am

From this discussion, I have in common with those up to 5 years older and younger (more on the former) as most of my friends are from the first half of the 90s. Now I can't understand how I'm a late millennial when I could (and did) vote for Obama in 2012 and my adolescence was predominantly in the Bush administration/Myspace era. What about the early 10s college culture? It was mostly Millennial. I understand I was an adolescent in the early 10s, but it was basically my HS senior year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/07/16 at 1:14 am


2003 I'd say politically was very Core Y because you had the Iraq War that year. I'm not sure about 1998-2002 having Gen X, you'd probably know more about that :P


I see you point. Not just for the Iraq War but the DVD/XP overtaking and the beginnings of faux-Emo and Myspace. But, you still had the fads and trends of 1998-2002 still going strong and the mid 00's was still developing. 2003 is in the middle if you ask me. ;D Here's an simple example: I see the Pop Punk bands that we like as X/Millennial bands. They pretty much built upon the Dookie sound (with strong Screeching Weasel influences too) and I knew a lot of 1979/1980 dudes who were really into it. I can't say the same about Cork Tree and American Idiot. That era is really removed from Punk in general, in my opinion. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 2:16 am


I see you point. Not just for the Iraq War but the DVD/XP overtaking and the beginnings of faux-Emo and Myspace. But, you still had the fads and trends of 1998-2002 still going strong and the mid 00's was still developing. 2003 is in the middle if you ask me. ;D Here's an simple example: I see the Pop Punk bands that we like as X/Millennial bands. They pretty much built upon the Dookie sound (with strong Screeching Weasel influences too) and I knew a lot of 1979/1980 dudes who were really into it. I can't say the same about Cork Tree and American Idiot. That era is really removed from Punk in general, in my opinion.


I'm not the most fleunt on the years, but I believe Grunge was still kicking until 1997, wasn't it? Then in the late 90s, I mean it's not rock, but you had the Spice Girls, the Backstreet Boys, NSYNC in 1996-1998, I think these are the bands that people consider Y. Also I know you consider early 2000s rock to be distinct from mid-2000s rock, but surely you must have noticed that most the mid-2000s bands were basically the late 90s/early 2000s bands updating their sound to fit the mid-2000s era? In that sense, it's not a completely discontinuous shift.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 2:31 am


From this discussion, I have in common with those up to 5 years older and younger (more on the former) as most of my friends are from the first half of the 90s. Now I can't understand how I'm a late millennial when I could (and did) vote for Obama in 2012 and my adolescence was predominantly in the Bush administration/Myspace era. What about the early 10s college culture? It was mostly Millennial. I understand I was an adolescent in the early 10s, but it was basically my HS senior year.


I think by late millennial, it just means you're not core millennial. To be core millennial I'd say you should have voted in 2008 rather than 2012. Having our adolescence in the 2000s is probably what keeps 1993 comfortably in Gen Y though.

Yeah, early 2010s university was comfortably Gen Y. It was mostly 1987 - 1993 borns when I went in in 2011 and got into school clubs and stuff, but of course a wide variety of ages attend university, and also not everyone goes for a post-secondary education. (but most Millennials do). In Canada you had the Toronto G20 protests in 2010, Montreal Student protests in 2012, (and the Harlem Shake in 2013) which I consider to be Gen Y LOL

Late Gen Y in da house!!

ae8lpll7qeQ
Jr6K3I8XLDE

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/07/16 at 2:44 am


I'm not the most fleunt on the years, but I believe Grunge was still kicking until 1997, wasn't it? Then in the late 90s, I mean it's not rock, but you had the Spice Girls, the Backstreet Boys, NSYNC in 1996-1998, I think these are the bands that people consider Y. Also I know you consider early 2000s rock to be distinct from mid-2000s rock, but surely you must have noticed that most the mid-2000s bands were basically the late 90s/early 2000s bands updating their sound to fit the mid-2000s era? In that sense, it's not a completely discontinuous shift.


Yep! When I was in High School, 1997 was the last year of the Grunge style for sure. And yeah, I'd say those bands are definitely Millennial bands (groups? bands? who knows!). I think you've seen my rants about how the bands changed their sounds. :P Bands like Sum 41, Home Grown, blink-182, NFG, The Used, My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy had that X/early Millennial Y2K sound in 1998-2002 and changed their style in 2003-2004. Even Green Day and The Offspring changed their sounds and they're both (or were) X bands. I still continue 1998-2002
~a different time from the rest of the 2000's but I can see why one would say it's not a total discontinuous shift.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/07/16 at 6:41 am


That's EASY! First of all, they were old enough to vote in the 2004 election, most millennials first big election was when Obama got elected in 08. Second of all they became teens during the late 90s. and the 90s was mainly a Gen X decade even though the very late 90s ushered in the Gen Y culture.  Also they were children of the TMNT, NES, Neon, Sega Genesis, EARLY Nick, and HW Bush early 90s era. But they are also kids of the MMPR, SNES, Classic Nickelodeon, Clinton first term, Gangsta rap, and Grunge era.
Most importantly their teen years were during the Y2K phenomenon, Post 9/11 paronia, Glam rap, Nu metal years
Not the Myspace, 50 Cent, Crank and Snap rap, Metacore, early YouTube, Bush rebellion years which define core Gen Y.


I agree with this! So by that definition that would make those born from 1981-1986 Early Gen Y; 1987-1991 as Core Y, & 1992-1997 as Late Y! X/Y Cusps would be those born from 1977-1980 & Y/Z Cusps would be those born from 1998-2001!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Gdowe1991 on 02/07/16 at 6:43 am


But you said 1991 was Core Y, yet they were too young to vote for Obama the first time. They had to wait until 2012, when 1992-1994 borns also got to vote for him.

1984-1986 were old enough to vote during the 2004 election which was a pretty lackluster election, but they were still young enough to get into the heart of Obamamania. 18 - 24 is what most describe as youth voters.

I think most people agree that the late 90s was Generation Y culture for teens/adults. People born 1980-1983 were teens during the mid-90s, which makes them early Millennials to me. But 1984 are late 90s teens, 1985/1986 are early 2000s teens when MSN/AOL took over. They were the perfect age for Gen Y kid culture to be already established, and perfect age for Gen Y teen culture to already be established.

I was a teenager during "Myspace, 50 Cent, Crank and Snap rap, Metacore, early YouTube, Bush rebellion years", but we all agree that 1993 is anywhere between late Y and pioneer Z, far away from the core Y years.
I think that 1991 borns can fit easily into core Y because they spent all their high school years in the 2000s and their youth was immersed in core 2000s pop culture such as crunk, emo, MySpace, etc so while we may have been a bit too young to vote in the 2008 election we pretty much spent our youth experiencing the quintessential culture of what the decade had to offer as teens, and going back to an earlier comment that you had posted you had labeled 1991 borns as generation Z and there couldn't be anything further than the truth than that. I have heard some websites site 1991 as generation z which I think is outright ridiculous hell we aren't even y/z cusp, we are just firmly Gen y. I think it is more about your cultural experience that determines your generation although political awareness does play some part in it, but mostly pop culture. Being born in 1991 I can easily remember a time in my life before I had the internet and that is definitely quintessential to being a Gen y member.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/07/16 at 9:11 am


You are Generation X, he is Millennial. His kid and teen cultures were very different from yours. The change in birth patterns, attitudes towards babies and young children, and the way in which popular culture played out and evolved and changed made two people born only four years apart have very different experiences in life. Someone born in 1981 has practically nothing in common with someone born in 1985. As a matter of fact, 1985 babies culturally have more in common with someone born in 1989 than 1981. 1981 is a '90s teen, whereas 1985 and 1989 are '00s teens. An early '00s high school experience was much more like a mid '00s one than a late '90s one. It's like the Silent Generation/Baby Boomer gap. Such a short period of space yet such an enormous difference in attitude and mindset and tastes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/07/16 at 9:19 am


I agree with this! So by that definition that would make those born from 1981-1986 Early Gen Y; 1987-1991 as Core Y, & 1992-1997 as Late Y! X/Y Cusps would be those born from 1977-1980 & Y/Z Cusps would be those born from 1998-2001!


Weren't 2001 babies in kindergarten back in the 2006-2007 school year? That was definitely the rise of Z, according to you guys. I can get 1999 and 2000 babies being Y/Z cusps, since they started Kindergarten in Y/Z cusp years, but 2001 is more Z compared to them. Or unless, Y culture sneaked in late 2006 and early 2007 where '01 babies can remember it, I guess.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/07/16 at 9:30 am


I think by late millennial, it just means you're not core millennial. To be core millennial I'd say you should have voted in 2008 rather than 2012. Having our adolescence in the 2000s is probably what keeps 1993 comfortably in Gen Y though.

Yeah, early 2010s university was comfortably Gen Y. It was mostly 1987 - 1993 borns when I went in in 2011 and got into school clubs and stuff, but of course a wide variety of ages attend university, and also not everyone goes for a post-secondary education. (but most Millennials do). In Canada you had the Toronto G20 protests in 2010, Montreal Student protests in 2012, (and the Harlem Shake in 2013) which I consider to be Gen Y LOL

Late Gen Y in da house!!

ae8lpll7qeQ
Jr6K3I8XLDE


There should be more features on the core/late millennial group. Just being able to vote in 2008 isn't enough. The main factors should be characteristics, events, and miscellaneous. That's what all generations are defined by.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/07/16 at 9:42 am


You are Generation X, he is Millennial. His kid and teen cultures were very different from yours. The change in birth patterns, attitudes towards babies and young children, and the way in which popular culture played out and evolved and changed made two people born only four years apart have very different experiences in life. Someone born in 1981 has practically nothing in common with someone born in 1985. As a matter of fact, 1985 babies culturally have more in common with someone born in 1989 than 1981. 1981 is a '90s teen, whereas 1985 and 1989 are '00s teens. An early '00s high school experience was much more like a mid '00s one than a late '90s one. It's like the Silent Generation/Baby Boomer gap. Such a short period of space yet such an enormous difference in attitude and mindset and tastes.


Now that we are adults I can see a lot of differences in our mindset the way we handle everyday issues when it comes to things like cash, and our view on living life. I'm thinking maybe everyone who is from his generation are more responsible and independent. Not that I'm complaining about my generation or anything. This is us daily:


Cash:
Me: "I want to go shopping today!"
Him: "No, you have to save money."

Me:"I don't know how much I have"
Him:" I write down how much I spend so I know how much I'll have at the end of the day."

He is much more responsible and I'm more spontaneous.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 10:31 am


I think that 1991 borns can fit easily into core Y because they spent all their high school years in the 2000s and their youth was immersed in core 2000s pop culture such as crunk, emo, MySpace, etc so while we may have been a bit too young to vote in the 2008 election we pretty much spent our youth experiencing the quintessential culture of what the decade had to offer as teens, and going back to an earlier comment that you had posted you had labeled 1991 borns as generation Z and there couldn't be anything further than the truth than that. I have heard some websites site 1991 as generation z which I think is outright ridiculous hell we aren't even y/z cusp, we are just firmly Gen y. I think it is more about your cultural experience that determines your generation although political awareness does play some part in it, but mostly pop culture. Being born in 1991 I can easily remember a time in my life before I had the internet and that is definitely quintessential to being a Gen y member.


What I can agree with is that 1991 is clear-cut Y, they're not close to Generation Z. However you guys were still only in high school when the 2008 election was happening, while people born 1990 were in university or at a job. Not only that, you were in high school during 2008-09 school year, so Facebook and Twitter and a lot of electropop would have been a part of your high school experience during your last year. Someone in your graduating class probably had a touchscreen smartphone, although I know they weren't completely popular even when I graduated in 2010. You caught a "glimpse" into what it was like to be in high school in the 2010s, although obviously not as well as people born 92/93.

It's a tricky year because you had all your teenage years in the 2000s (except 2010) in, as you said, the MySpace, Mean Girls era, but I think since you guys were still high school teenagers when it came to events you should have been adults for (2008 election, Occupy, Great Recession) and of course being a high school teen at a time of rapid changes (Facebook, Twitter, the rise of LGBT acceptance, the rise of the nerds, the electropop era etc.), it would make you guys late Y.  Now I'm not saying you should have more in common with those born 93/94 than 1990, "Generation" doesn't have much to do with that. For that you can refer to Toon's Second Principle that you should have an identical childhood/teenage to those born +/- 2 years from you.

You can remember a time before Internet? Even when no one else had Internet? When did you get it? I got it late 96/early 97, so if you were my older brother or something you would probably have a hard time remembering life before Internet :P It all depends though. A lot of people didn't get Internet until 1999-2003.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 10:53 am


There should be more features on the core/late millennial group. Just being able to vote in 2008 isn't enough. The main factors should be characteristics, events, and miscellaneous. That's what all generations are defined by.


Which events would you say make core Y?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/07/16 at 12:37 pm


From this discussion, I have in common with those up to 5 years older and younger (more on the former) as most of my friends are from the first half of the 90s. Now I can't understand how I'm a late millennial when I could (and did) vote for Obama in 2012 and my adolescence was predominantly in the Bush administration/Myspace era. What about the early 10s college culture? It was mostly Millennial. I understand I was an adolescent in the early 10s, but it was basically my HS senior year.

You ARE a late millennial because first off you were STILL a teen during the electropop, recession, early Obama years. You may have been in your late teens but still a teen. Also Core Y would be the 2008 election NOT the 2012 one with Romney and Obama. Just my two cents.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/07/16 at 12:38 pm


What I can agree with is that 1991 is clear-cut Y, they're not close to Generation Z. However you guys were still only in high school when the 2008 election was happening, while people born 1990 were in university or at a job. Not only that, you were in high school during 2008-09 school year, so Facebook and Twitter and a lot of electropop would have been a part of your high school experience during your last year. Someone in your graduating class probably had a touchscreen smartphone, although I know they weren't completely popular even when I graduated in 2010. You caught a "glimpse" into what it was like to be in high school in the 2010s, although obviously not as well as people born 92/93.

It's a tricky year because you had all your teenage years in the 2000s (except 2010) in, as you said, the MySpace, Mean Girls era, but I think since you guys were still high school teenagers when it came to events you should have been adults for (2008 election, Occupy, Great Recession) and of course being a high school teen at a time of rapid changes (Facebook, Twitter, the rise of LGBT acceptance, the rise of the nerds, the electropop era etc.), it would make you guys late Y.  Now I'm not saying you should have more in common with those born 93/94 than 1990, "Generation" doesn't have much to do with that. For that you can refer to Toon's Second Principle that you should have an identical childhood/teenage to those born +/- 2 years from you.

You can remember a time before Internet? Even when no one else had Internet? When did you get it? I got it late 96/early 97, so if you were my older brother or something you would probably have a hard time remembering life before Internet :P It all depends though. A lot of people didn't get Internet until 1999-2003.

Yeah 1991ers and 1992ers are on the cups of core and late.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/07/16 at 12:42 pm


Which events would you say make core Y?

I'll try to keep it short and sweet. Core Y would be, being a kid during the heart of the 90s, a kid during majority of the Clinton years, being a teen during the core 2000s, during the Mean Girls, Ipod, Myspace, Crank and snap rap era, Metacore era, Coming of age in the late 2000s, being able to vote when Obama came in. Being in college or starting in the workforce when the economic crash happened. Those are the few I can think of.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/07/16 at 1:29 pm


Yeah 1991ers and 1992ers are on the cusp of core and late.


I always said this too!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/07/16 at 1:44 pm


Which events would you say make core Y?
Adding to what Eazyman said, there's 9/11, the Iraq war, the turn of the millennium and the 2000 election. One thing we should talk about is the attributes. Regarding some, there is optimism, narcissism, team effort, tech-dependent (we're not actually tech savvy) and marshmallow.


You ARE a late millennial because first off you were STILL a teen during the electropop, recession, early Obama years. You may have been in your late teens but still a teen. Also Core Y would be the 2008 election NOT the 2012 one with Romney and Obama. Just my two cents.
I'm not denying that. I understand I was a teenager in the early 10s, but I feel I'm in between core and late. Everything Slowpoke stated is what I witnessed throughout HS. The transition from Myspace to FB; half of my HS career was during GWB's administration; the Great recession; rise of LGBT acceptance and electropop and the 2008 election.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/07/16 at 1:46 pm


I was a teenager from 2006 - 2012, which is why I feel Y/Z cusp. I'm both a 2000s teen and a 2010s teen!

My favourite school year was 2009-10 school year, the one where we thought the world was going to end because the Hadron Collider was going to make a black hole LOL.

Being a 2000s teen was really miserable, people were homophobic and if you were good at math you would get bullied. I loved the "kumbaya" moment we all had in 2009-10 school year when the nerds took over school and bullying became super uncool. It was the only high school year I didn't feel sub-human. I "experienced" both but I liked being a 2010s teen more, by far. Of course I graduated in 2010 and got a full-time job, so I'm not sure if I'm young enough to be a full blown 2010s teen.


Yeah, you and me are definitely too old to be full blown 2010s teens. The way I see it, you have to be a teen during the majority of the decade to be considered a teen of said decade. My sister, for example, was a teen from mid 2000-mid 2007. So she'd definitely be a 2000s teen.

It's interesting that you mentioned that the 2009-2010 school year was a "kumbaya" moment. It's probably different depending on the high school, especially since we're both in different countries. I went to a number different of high schools. The first high school I went to, for my first two years of high school, was already pretty open and accepting. But the next high school I went to was totally different. I remember feeling most like an outcast in my junior year, which was 2010-2011. Perhaps that "kumbaya" moment faded away after the 2009-2010 school year? I don't know.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/07/16 at 1:51 pm


To me core Y is 1984 - 1990, the people who were on university campuses during the 2008 Obama election and were protesting in Occupy etc. 1990 mostly graduated in class of 2008, if I'm correct, so they would not be in high school when the Facebook takeover happened in 2008-09 school year (though if I remember correctly, in the South, late 1990 borns would graduate in 2009?). 1991 is the transition out of core Y year to me, since they graduated 2009. And I generally agree with the Toon's Third Principle (yeah, I'm giving it a name*) that anyone who graduated in the 2010s is late Y at the earliest.

*Toon's First Principle is you have a mostly identical childhood to anyone born +/- 2 years from you.
*Toon's Second Principle is you should be able to easily relate to anyone born +/- 3 years from you, or else you're a real snob or don't have many friends.



Pretty much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/07/16 at 1:55 pm

This makes me bring up the question, does anybody think that this upcoming 2016 election is the first true Gen Z election? It's a new president. 1995-1998 born's are voting for the first time while ironically a lot of sources start Z around this time. But I still think we're Y/Z cusp though. Hey, people say that the 2008 election is core Y and the 2012 election is late Y. The 2004 election is early Y while the 2000 election is X/Y cusp.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/07/16 at 1:57 pm


This makes me bring up the question, does anybody think that this upcoming 2016 election is the first true Gen Z election? It's a new president. 1995-1998 born's are voting for the first time while ironically a lot of sources start Z around this time. But I still think we're Y/Z cusp though. Hey, people say that the 2008 election is core Y and the 2012 election is late Y. The 2004 election is early Y while the 2000 election is X/Y cusp.

Nope the 2024 is probably going to be the first true Z election, 2020 is going to be Early Z.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/07/16 at 1:57 pm


I'm not the most fleunt on the years, but I believe Grunge was still kicking until 1997, wasn't it? Then in the late 90s, I mean it's not rock, but you had the Spice Girls, the Backstreet Boys, NSYNC in 1996-1998, I think these are the bands that people consider Y. Also I know you consider early 2000s rock to be distinct from mid-2000s rock, but surely you must have noticed that most the mid-2000s bands were basically the late 90s/early 2000s bands updating their sound to fit the mid-2000s era? In that sense, it's not a completely discontinuous shift.


I think it was mostly the fashion that was still popular, but not the music. Then again, this is the perspective of someone who was a preschooler at the time, so I am probably not the most reliable source of information  :P

Though I do remember that me and my sister had an 18 year old babysitter, who was really into grunge fashion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/07/16 at 2:00 pm


I agree with this! So by that definition that would make those born from 1981-1986 Early Gen Y; 1987-1991 as Core Y, & 1992-1997 as Late Y! X/Y Cusps would be those born from 1977-1980 & Y/Z Cusps would be those born from 1998-2001!


Sounds about right.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 02/07/16 at 3:23 pm

What about this?

Early Millennials (1981-1986)
Core Millennials (1987-1993)
Late Millennials (1994-2000)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 4:48 pm


Yeah 1991ers and 1992ers are on the cups of core and late.


Having cusp cores and cusp lates sounds like a bit too much to me. You're either core or you're late ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/07/16 at 4:49 pm


Having cusp cores and cusp lates sounds like a bit too much to me. You're either core or you're late ;D


That should be a slogan for generation cusps.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/07/16 at 4:54 pm


That should be a slogan for generation cusps.


*snicker*  :-X

Lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/07/16 at 4:58 pm


What about this?

Early Millennials (1981-1986)
Core Millennials (1987-1993)
Late Millennials (1994-2000)


You can't have 5 years in the early section and 6 years in the late section, it doesn't make mathematical sense. Anyways, I'm sort of torn on starting Y in 1981 or 1982, because 81ers were part of the Class of 1999 which was undeniably Y culture while the 82ers were the first to graduate in the 2000's...

For now I would say that the barriers are this:

1981-1986: Early Y (Ultimate Early Yer: 1984)

1987-1991: Core Y (Ultimate Core Yer: 1989)

1992-1997: Late Y (Ultimate Late Yer: 1995)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/07/16 at 5:02 pm


This makes me bring up the question, does anybody think that this upcoming 2016 election is the first true Gen Z election? It's a new president. 1995-1998 born's are voting for the first time while ironically a lot of sources start Z around this time. But I still think we're Y/Z cusp though. Hey, people say that the 2008 election is core Y and the 2012 election is late Y. The 2004 election is early Y while the 2000 election is X/Y cusp.


I'd say its the VERY Late Y or Y/Z Cusp Election

2020 would be the Early Z Election

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 5:27 pm


You can't have 5 years in the early section and 6 years in the late section, it doesn't make mathematical sense. Anyways, I'm sort of torn on starting Y in 1981 or 1982, because 81ers were part of the Class of 1999 which was undeniably Y culture while the 82ers were the first to graduate in the 2000's...

For now I would say that the barriers are this:

1981-1986: Early Y (Ultimate Early Yer: 1984)

1987-1991: Core Y (Ultimate Core Yer: 1989)

1992-1997: Late Y (Ultimate Late Yer: 1995)


Does it make sense that the core Y is the smallest range of the three? I think it should be the biggest by a good margin, or else Gen Y wouldn't have much of a strong identity.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/07/16 at 5:46 pm


You can't have 5 years in the early section and 6 years in the late section, it doesn't make mathematical sense. Anyways, I'm sort of torn on starting Y in 1981 or 1982, because 81ers were part of the Class of 1999 which was undeniably Y culture while the 82ers were the first to graduate in the 2000's...

For now I would say that the barriers are this:

1981-1986: Early Y (Ultimate Early Yer: 1984)

1987-1991: Core Y (Ultimate Core Yer: 1989)

1992-1997: Late Y (Ultimate Late Yer: 1995)


So does that make post-1997 babies Z and nothing more?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/07/16 at 6:11 pm


Yeah, you and me are definitely too old to be full blown 2010s teens. The way I see it, you have to be a teen during the majority of the decade to be considered a teen of said decade. My sister, for example, was a teen from mid 2000-mid 2007. So she'd definitely be a 2000s teen.

It's interesting that you mentioned that the 2009-2010 school year was a "kumbaya" moment. It's probably different depending on the high school, especially since we're both in different countries. I went to a number different of high schools. The first high school I went to, for my first two years of high school, was already pretty open and accepting. But the next high school I went to was totally different. I remember feeling most like an outcast in my junior year, which was 2010-2011. Perhaps that "kumbaya" moment faded away after the 2009-2010 school year? I don't know.


Yeah the 2000s portion of my adolescence lasted longer, I thought it was never going to end. The 2010s part didn't last long enough!

Interesting, it's not what I usually hear from other folks. Most people pin the rise of nerd/geek culture to 2008-09 school year, and the next year would be the first full year of it. I think I might have some personal bias leaking into my assessment, because the bullies (I guess "jocks") in my school got expelled in 2008-09 school year. They thought it would be hilarious to charge and choke a ginger kid like they were the Undertaker. They got expelled shortly afterwards and the school atmosphere became quickly relaxed. The other bullies who didn't get caught up in that also reduced their activities, I even became friends with them some of them in 2009-10 strangely enough, I decided to move on. But even before they were expelled I noticed that people were standing up to them more and more that year (2008-09). Like this knuckle-head who tried to pick on me because I had a Shy Guy (from Mario) phone charm (yeah, I got bullied over THAT). He was 6 foot 4, and I was only like 5 foot 9 back then, and he had me cornered and by the collar. That's when the hottest girl in school stood up for me and told him he was being an idiot and to f*** off. That was the first time anyone stood up for me, I feel like it was that year when bullying/mid-2000s macho culture started being seen as uncool.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ArcticFox on 02/07/16 at 8:13 pm

The last year of the Millennial generation is 1999 at the earliest. At the latest, 2001.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/07/16 at 8:21 pm


The last year of the Millennial generation is 199 at the earliest. At the latest, 2001.


I'd say 1997 or the Class of 2015 at the very earliest

2001 or the Class of 2019 at the very latest

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/07/16 at 8:50 pm


This makes me bring up the question, does anybody think that this upcoming 2016 election is the first true Gen Z election? It's a new president. 1995-1998 born's are voting for the first time while ironically a lot of sources start Z around this time. But I still think we're Y/Z cusp though. Hey, people say that the 2008 election is core Y and the 2012 election is late Y. The 2004 election is early Y while the 2000 election is X/Y cusp.


I don't think true Z count with early Z babies. Even though it's controversial, since some people think I'm a Y/Z cusp. I think the 2020 election would count as the first Z election, since it would have people born from 1999-October 2002 voting for president.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/08/16 at 2:15 am


The last year of the Millennial generation is 1999 at the earliest. At the latest, 2001.

Hey, I'm interested why you feel you have more in common with a 1998er than a 1992er. ???  I see a 92er as kind of an older sibling and a 98er as a younger sibling type. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Richbrings2life on 02/08/16 at 7:35 am

1981-1986: Early Y (Ultimate Early Yer: 1984): TMNT/American Pie generation

1987-1991: Core Y (Ultimate Core Yer: 1989): Power Rangers/Mean Girls generation

1992-1997: Late Y (Ultimate Late Yer: 1995): Pokemon/Twilight Generation

IMO

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/08/16 at 8:55 am


1981-1986: Early Y (Ultimate Early Yer: 1984): TMNT/American Pie generation

1987-1991: Core Y (Ultimate Core Yer: 1989): Power Rangers/Mean Girls generation

1992-1997: Late Y (Ultimate Late Yer: 1995): Pokemon/Twilight Generation

IMO


THIS.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/08/16 at 8:58 am


Hey, I'm interested why you feel you have more in common with a 1998er than a 1992er. ???  I see a 92er as kind of an older sibling and a 98er as a younger sibling type. ;D


But weren't you guys born in Late 95'? That would make you 2-2 1/2 years older than a 98er and 3-3 1/2 years younger than a 92er. So your closer in age to a 98er. Now if you were born in early or mid 95' I could see where your coming from as that would be an equal age difference

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/08/16 at 10:34 am


But weren't you guys born in Late 95'? That would make you 2-2 1/2 years older than a 98er and 3-3 1/2 years younger than a 92er. So your closer in age to a 98er. Now if you were born in early or mid 95' I could see where your coming from as that would be an equal age difference

All I was saying that I kinda see a 92er as an older sibling and I see a 98er as a younger sibling!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/08/16 at 10:54 am


All I was saying that I kinda see a 92er as an older sibling and I see a 98er as a younger sibling!


I get where your coming from but mosr people from 98' would be 2-3 years younger than you while most people from 92' would be 3-4 years older than you. So I'm just trying to figure out when does the differences start to feel noticeable for you?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/08/16 at 4:48 pm


I get where your coming from but most people from 98' would be 2-3 years younger than you while most people from 92' would be 3-4 years older than you. So I'm just trying to figure out when does the differences start to feel noticeable for you?

Well, I said what I said earlier is because a 92er is a true late 90s and early 00s kid hybrid, and a 98er is a TRUE 00s kid.
Also a 92er's teen years were during the Myspace, Crank and Snap rap, and metacore era also it was during the electropop, twitter, recession era, early Obama years.  And a 98er is a true 2010s teen, predominantly during the ''core'' 10s.
Like I said before, it's a no win scenario! ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/08/16 at 4:53 pm


Well, I said what I said earlier is because a 92er is a true late 90s and early 00s kid hybrid, and a 98er is a TRUE 00s kid.
Also a 92er's teen years were during the Myspace, Crank and Snap rap, and metacore era also it was during the electropop, twitter, recession era, early Obama years.  And a 98er is a true 2010s teen, predominantly during the ''core'' 10s.
Like I said before, it's a no win scenario! ;D


You got a point there! Our core childhoods were in the early-mid 00's, inbetween 92ers core years from the late 90's-early 00's and the 98ers core years in the mid-late 00's. On top of that our teen years were inbetween the core 00's where 92ers were teens and the core 10's where 98ers were teens. Its weird to think how someone just a couple years younger than me had a pretty significant difference in how they grew up (especially teen years).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/08/16 at 5:00 pm


You got a point there! Our core childhoods were in the early-mid 00's, inbetween 92ers core years from the late 90's-early 00's and the 98ers core years in the mid-late 00's. On top of that our teen years were inbetween the core 00's where 92ers were teens and the core 10's where 98ers were teens. Its weird to think how someone just a couple years younger than me had a pretty significant difference in how they grew up (especially teen years).

EXACTLY brotha! :) 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/08/16 at 5:54 pm

I'm spring 1987 born to baby boomer parents, I personally consider myself somewhere in-between early and middle gen y. I have a lot of more old school memories from the early '90s that people born in the early '90s don't have. I was an adolescent on 9/11/01 and remember it VERY well and the impact of it. These days I turn 29 in May and I'm not really into current pop culture as much anymore. Technology is starting to become too much these days as much as I grew up loving it. I miss not being quite as constantly "connected".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/08/16 at 7:12 pm


I'm spring 1987 born to baby boomer parents, I personally consider myself somewhere in-between early and middle gen y. I have a lot of more old school memories from the early '90s that people born in the early '90s don't have. I was an adolescent on 9/11/01 and remember it VERY well and the impact of it. These days I turn 29 in May and I'm not really into current pop culture as much anymore. Technology is starting to become too much these days as much as I grew up loving it. I miss not being quite as constantly "connected".


I consider 1987 to be core because the first presidential election you guys got to vote for was 2008. You'd probably prefer my definition of core Millennial being 1984 - 1990 over the "1987-1991" or "1987-1993" definitions I'm seeing here  :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/08/16 at 7:21 pm


I consider 1987 to be core because the first presidential election you guys got to vote for was 2008.


Yeah and I get that, but I remember the early '90s as a young child and was a teen in the early '00s. A lot of the "core Y" were still little kids on 9/11 so I don't relate to that as well. I was an adolescent in the early '00s. I felt too old for stuff like "Harry Potter" or "Pokemon" and was more into the youth culture of the early '00s than the childhood stuff. But like I said I consider myself borderline, especially being first half of 1987. Later '87 is probably more core y, but I'll always argue I (early '87) could go both ways.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/08/16 at 7:24 pm


Yeah and I get that, but I remember the early '90s as a young child and was a teen in the early '00s. A lot of the "core Y" were still little kids on 9/11 so I don't relate to that as well. I was an adolescent in the early '00s. I felt too old for stuff like "Harry Potter" or "Pokemon" and was more into the youth culture of the early '00s than the childhood stuff. But like I said I consider myself borderline, especially being first half of 1987. Later '87 is probably more core y, but I'll always argue I (early '87) could go both ways.


What is your opinion on 1984 - 1990 being "core Y"? I chose those years because you guys would be the "youth voters" of the 2008 election, and also the right ages to be in other movements like Occupy, and you would also be the young adults of the Great Recession, entering a really bad economy/job market.

You guys were also kids of the 90s and teens of the 2000s, young adults of the late 2000s/early 2010s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/08/16 at 7:51 pm


What is your opinion on 1984 - 1990 being "core Y"? I chose those years because you guys would be the "youth voters" of the 2008 election, and also the right ages to be in other movements like Occupy, and you would also be the young adults of the Great Recession, entering a really bad economy/job market.

You guys were also kids of the 90s and teens of the 2000s, young adults of the late 2000s/early 2010s.


Yeah and tbh everybody's "position" within a generation is different so it's a never ending argument in a way. And yeah to me 84-90 or so is my immediate "age group". I definitely relate more to mid '80s born than mid '90s say (I'm much closer in age). Mid '90s born people to me seem very young, not quite young enough where I could be their father but big gap.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/08/16 at 9:02 pm


I'm spring 1987 born to baby boomer parents, I personally consider myself somewhere in-between early and middle gen y. I have a lot of more old school memories from the early '90s that people born in the early '90s don't have. I was an adolescent on 9/11/01 and remember it VERY well and the impact of it. These days I turn 29 in May and I'm not really into current pop culture as much anymore. Technology is starting to become too much these days as much as I grew up loving it. I miss not being quite as constantly "connected".


I 100% agree with your opinion on 1987 born's! In fact, I'm not surprised that you believe that you're a mixture of early Y and core Y, while you say that you were too old for Harry Potter and Pokemon by the time those got big! You and Eric are hitting all cylinders right now!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mach!ne_he@d on 02/08/16 at 9:29 pm


I consider 1987 to be core because the first presidential election you guys got to vote for was 2008. You'd probably prefer my definition of core Millennial being 1984 - 1990 over the "1987-1991" or "1987-1993" definitions I'm seeing here  :P


Yeah, for what it's worth, I've personally always felt that the absolute core of "Gen Y" is right around 1987-88.

I mean, we're pretty much the perfect age to fit all of the traditional Millennial stereotypes. We were the perfect age to be into all of the major '90s kid fads (Power Rangers, Pogs, SNES vs. Genesis, and the like), the perfect age to be Nu Metalheads in the early '00s, the perfect age to be Emo kids in the mid '00s, were in college during the time of the Iraq War backlash/start of the Great Recession/rise of Barack Obama/etc., and are largely the musicians, star athletes, and young actors driving pop culture in the 2010's.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not actually bragging about being a "Core Millennial", mind you. Hating on Millennials is really en vouge in the media these days, so being considered a "core" part of the generation is not exactly a badge of honor. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/08/16 at 9:36 pm


Yeah, for what it's worth, I've personally always felt that the absolute core of "Gen Y" is right around 1987-88.

I mean, we're pretty much the perfect age to fit all of the traditional Millennial stereotypes. We were the perfect age to be into all of the major '90s kid fads (Power Rangers, Pogs, SNES vs. Genesis, and the like), the perfect age to be Nu Metalheads in the early '00s, the perfect age to be Emo kids in the mid '00s, were in college during the time of the Iraq War backlash/start of the Great Recession/rise of Barack Obama/etc., and are largely the musicians, star athletes, and young actors driving pop culture in the 2010's.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not actually bragging about being a "Core Millennial", mind you. Hating on Millennials is really en vouge in the media these days, so being considered a "core" part of the generation is not exactly a badge of honor. ;D

Almost spot on, except I'd say 1987-90 born are the absolute heart of Gen Y!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/08/16 at 9:37 pm


Yeah, for what it's worth, I've personally always felt that the absolute core of "Gen Y" is right around 1987-88.

I mean, we're pretty much the perfect age to fit all of the traditional Millennial stereotypes. We were the perfect age to be into all of the major '90s kid fads (Power Rangers, Pogs, SNES vs. Genesis, and the like), the perfect age to be Nu Metalheads in the early '00s, the perfect age to be Emo kids in the mid '00s, were in college during the time of the Iraq War backlash/start of the Great Recession/rise of Barack Obama/etc., and are largely the musicians, star athletes, and young actors driving pop culture in the 2010's.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not actually bragging about being a "Core Millennial", mind you. Hating on Millennials is really en vouge in the media these days, so being considered a "core" part of the generation is not exactly a badge of honor. ;D


I actually think the core is more around the 1990 borns. Though it depends on where you begin and end the generation.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/08/16 at 10:38 pm

BTW Brian I haven't seen you on this board, it feels like in a LONG TIME! :o ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/08/16 at 10:56 pm


BTW Brian I haven't seen you on this board, it feels like in a LONG TIME! :o ;D


Well it has been awhile, I hadn't been on here since August 2013 it looks like. 2 1/2 years absent.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/08/16 at 11:54 pm


I consider 1987 to be core because the first presidential election you guys got to vote for was 2008. You'd probably prefer my definition of core Millennial being 1984 - 1990 over the "1987-1991" or "1987-1993" definitions I'm seeing here :P



Yeah, for what it's worth, I've personally always felt that the absolute core of "Gen Y" is right around 1987-88.

I mean, we're pretty much the perfect age to fit all of the traditional Millennial stereotypes. We were the perfect age to be into all of the major '90s kid fads (Power Rangers, Pogs, SNES vs. Genesis, and the like), the perfect age to be Nu Metalheads in the early '00s, the perfect age to be Emo kids in the mid '00s, were in college during the time of the Iraq War backlash/start of the Great Recession/rise of Barack Obama/etc., and are largely the musicians, star athletes, and young actors driving pop culture in the 2010's.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not actually bragging about being a "Core Millennial", mind you. Hating on Millennials is really en vouge in the media these days, so being considered a "core" part of the generation is not exactly a badge of honor. ;D



Almost spot on, except I'd say 1987-90 born are the absolute heart of Gen Y!



I actually think the core is more around the 1990 borns. Though it depends on where you begin and end the generation.


Well the problem is that we're still not sure on when the generation begins and ends. If you guys look look up the old definition and articles, it stated the 1977-1994 demographic; however, that's when the generation was still called Y or Echo Boomer at the time. Now, we're considered Millennials (which is another term many people in this generation are starting to hate) beginning with 1980 and ending at 2000. If you look at the characteristics this generation contains, we all pretty have some of them in one way or another. 

If you guys even look at the articles for the Plurals (Z), they're saying that this generation is the one that's going to do much better Millennials (us) when they're clearly exaggerating. First, most of them are still elementary and won't be changing the world until they hit their 30s and 40s. Yes, the older members are making changes; however, it's still too early for that especially considering that Xers and us haven't even been in power yet.

Oh another thing, generations are not created just for marketing purposes, but for other factors as well.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/08/16 at 11:57 pm


Well it has been awhile, I hadn't been on here since August 2013 it looks like. 2 1/2 years absent.

Like I said in another thread, glad you have returned!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/09/16 at 12:29 am




Well the problem is that we're still not sure on when the generation begins and ends. If you guys look look up the old definition and articles, it stated the 1977-1994 demographic; however, that's when the generation was still called Y or Echo Boomer at the time. Now, we're considered Millennials (which is another term many people in this generation are starting to hate) beginning with 1980 and ending at 2000. If you look at the characteristics this generation contains, we all pretty have some of them in one way or another. 



Yeah, that 1977-1994 definition is a bit outdated. Nowadays I tend to see end dates that is usually around 2000 (give or take a few years around it). Heck I don't even see how 70s born are even considered to be Millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/09/16 at 4:41 pm


Like I said in another thread, glad you have returned!


same here. :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/09/16 at 5:53 pm


Yeah, that 1977-1994 definition is a bit outdated. Nowadays I tend to see end dates that is usually around 2000 (give or take a few years around it). Heck I don't even see how 70s born are even considered to be Millennials.
Yeah it sure is; however, that wasn't the only one. Even back then, the same generation had put the beginning at 1980/81 as well Here are some old articles with both demographics on why it was considered that way.

http://www.fdu.edu/newspubs/magazine/05ws/generations.htm

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm

http://adage.com/article/news/generation/55731/

http://readwrite.com/2004/06/24/knowledge_manag_1

http://www.valueoptions.com/spotlight_YIW/gen_y.htm

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/14/news/cl-36953

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/1999/09/the_american_teenager.single.html

http://www.lifecourse.com/media/articles/lib/2003/030003-axess.html

http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm

http://www.cdnbizwomen.com/articles/friedmann28.html

https://poptop.hypermart.net/generation.html

http://archive.knoxmpc.org/locldata/poproj.pdf

http://www.scouting.org/Home/Marketing/Resources/MarketingResearch/UniqueExperiences.aspx

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/10/16 at 3:51 pm


Yeah it sure is; however, that wasn't the only one. Even back then, the same generation had put the beginning at 1980/81 as well Here are some old articles with both demographics on why it was considered that way.

http://www.fdu.edu/newspubs/magazine/05ws/generations.htm

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm

http://adage.com/article/news/generation/55731/

http://readwrite.com/2004/06/24/knowledge_manag_1

http://www.valueoptions.com/spotlight_YIW/gen_y.htm

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/14/news/cl-36953

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/1999/09/the_american_teenager.single.html

http://www.lifecourse.com/media/articles/lib/2003/030003-axess.html

http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm

http://www.cdnbizwomen.com/articles/friedmann28.html

https://poptop.hypermart.net/generation.html

http://archive.knoxmpc.org/locldata/poproj.pdf

http://www.scouting.org/Home/Marketing/Resources/MarketingResearch/UniqueExperiences.aspx


Man! The articles are old. It's easy to see how some are outdated. For example that one from 1999 is VERY outdated. A lot of the things that would define Gen Z didn't even exist by 1999 (although I could be wrong as this as I'm not the most knowledgeable on generations). So I'm confused as to how the writer thought up of the end date for Gen Y by that point. That article from 2003 calls the millennials "Generation 2000" which is something I don't think I've ever heard any where else. Nowadays in 2015-2016 I tend to see 1982 - 2000.  Although it is possible to have recent articles that use outdated definitions. I don't think there will ever be an accurate and/or fully agreed year span.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/10/16 at 7:10 pm


Man! The articles are old. It's easy to see how some are outdated. For example that one from 1999 is VERY outdated. A lot of the things that would define Gen Z didn't even exist by 1999 (although I could be wrong as this as I'm not the most knowledgeable on generations). So I'm confused as to how the writer thought up of the end date for Gen Y by that point. That article from 2003 calls the millennials "Generation 2000" which is something I don't think I've ever heard any where else. Nowadays in 2015-2016 I tend to see 1982 - 2000.  Although it is possible to have recent articles that use outdated definitions. I don't think there will ever be an accurate and/or fully agreed year span.
See? I say that's the problem. The articles have been using the outdated demographic for a long time now. It's why some people have gotten confused on which generation they apart of. Even the 1995-09 generation Z demographic is obsolete. That one goes back to 2004!!

http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm

It states it at the bottom of the page.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: muppethammer26 on 02/10/16 at 7:14 pm


See? I say that's the problem. The articles have been using the outdated demographic for a long time now. It's why some people have gotten confused on which generation they apart of. Even the 1995-09 generation Z demographic is obsolete. That one goes back to 2004!!

http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm

It states it at the bottom of the page.


WOW! THEIR OWN GEN X DEMOGRAPHIC IS ONLY 10 YEARS (1966-1976)! WHILE THEY START GEN Y AT 1977? WHAT??? GEN X SHOULD BE 1961-1980 AND GEN Y SHOULD BE 1981-2000.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/10/16 at 7:32 pm


WOW! THEIR OWN GEN X DEMOGRAPHIC IS ONLY 10 YEARS (1966-1976)! WHILE THEY START GEN Y AT 1977? WHAT??? GEN X SHOULD BE 1961-1980 AND GEN Y SHOULD BE 1981-2000.
That's because it's from 2004 when the demographics were by their old definition of characteristics, events and misc.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/10/16 at 7:43 pm


See? I say that's the problem. The articles have been using the outdated demographic for a long time now. It's why some people have gotten confused on which generation they apart of. Even the 1995-09 generation Z demographic is obsolete. That one goes back to 2004!!

http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm

It states it at the bottom of the page.


Yeah. That article can be seen as outdated. The things that I tend to see in articles in 2016 are different than what I see in that 2004 article. Heck the writer didn't even explain as to why she/he gave those year spans for each gen. And why is Gen X only 10 years? Yep, the article is outdated alright. For Gen Y it says 1977-1994 which I'm sure most people on this forum don't agree with as almost everyone here starts Gen Y in the 80s. And I don't think I've seen a lot of articles nowadays that split the Baby Boomers into 2 separate groups (Baby Boomers and Jones).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/10/16 at 7:46 pm


Yeah. That article can be seen as outdated. The things that I tend to see in articles in 2016 are different than what I see in that 2004 article. Heck the writer didn't even explain as to why she/he gave those year spans for each gen. And why is Gen X only 10 years? Yep, the article is outdated alright. For Gen Y it says 1977-1994 which I'm sure most people on this forum don't agree with as almost everyone here starts Gen Z in the 80s. And I don't think I've seen a lot of articles nowadays that split the Baby Boomers into 2 separate groups (Baby Boomers and Jones).


A lot of people started Y in the early '80s years ago too, it's not a new thing at all. This guy even ends it as late as freaking 2003! which is later than people are ending it right now.

http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe00s/smf/1100809756.shtml

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/10/16 at 7:57 pm


A lot of people started Y in the early '80s years ago too, it's not a new thing at all. This guy even ends it as late as freaking 2003! which is later than people are ending it right now.

http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe00s/smf/1100809756.shtml


I'm aware that people start Gen Y in the early '80s, but that one makes more sense to me than starting Gen Y in the '70s. Also who ends Gen Y in 2003?? Ehhh..... I don't see that a lot.  ??? To me I start Gen Y in the '80s and the furthest I'd ever end it is the late 1990s or 2000. But I'm not the most knowledgeable on generations. So I try to avoid giving a year span on generations. And I also think it would be better to wait after a certain amount of time ends before giving a year span. By this I mean to not make a generation span that extends far into the future as you don't know what events would even happen by that point.  For example that person says Gen Z is 2004-2025. We don't know what the 2020s will be like or even the late 2010s for that matter. And then when 2025 comes that person would find him/herself having to change/update the year spans due to being off in his/her own predictions for the year spans.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/10/16 at 8:00 pm


I'm aware that people start Gen Y in the early '80s, but that one makes more sense to me than starting Gen Y in the '70s. Also who ends Gen Y in 2003?? Ehhh..... I don't see that a lot.  ??? To me I start Gen Y in the '80s and the furthest I'd ever end it is the late 1990s or 2000.


Yeah that's late, just saying that someone way back in 2004 thought it ended that late oddly.

http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe00s/smf/1115582588.shtml

I (I was bbigd04 back then) posted "around 2000" back in 2005.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/10/16 at 8:09 pm


Yeah that's late, just saying that someone way back in 2004 thought it ended that late oddly.

http://www.inthe00s.com/archive/inthe00s/smf/1115582588.shtml

I (I was bbigd04 back then) posted "around 2000" back in 2005.


"around 2000" seems more accurate as it goes with the whole idea behind Gen Y/millennials. A lot of people in that old thread are just throwing around year dates with some reasons that I'd consider to be a bit arbitrary. I mean one poster says it starts in 1993-1994 without even giving a reasons as to why.  And one even says 1991 ??? As I scroll down the old thread and see the later posts I've started noticing people with different dates that are more up to date while the earlier posts in the thread can easily be seen as outdated (or just wrong).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/10/16 at 8:50 pm

Though the Baby Boomer generation is pretty set, some still debate the years of that even. I've read debates from people born in the early '60s saying they don't identify with that generation and that the boomers actually added the early '60s on just to make themselves seem younger ROFL.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/10/16 at 9:40 pm


Though the Baby Boomer generation is pretty set, some still debate the years of that even. I've read debates from people born in the early '60s saying they don't identify with that generation and that the boomers actually added the early '60s on just to make themselves seem younger ROFL.  ;D


HA! That's pretty funny. Never heard anything like that before.  ;D I gotta ask my old family members if they ever feel like they're Baby Boomers as they were born in 1960 and 1961.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/12/16 at 9:58 pm

Now, I'm not saying 1995-1997 is "purely" Gen Z (VHS tapes, dial-up, etc. was still around until 2006), but it seems that for the VAST majority researchers, marketers, and demographers, '95 is the start date they've got locked in. Even MSNBC uses 1995-2012.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gen-z-bernie-sanders-answers-the-how-policy-making

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/12/16 at 10:15 pm


Now, I'm not saying 1995-1997 is "purely" Gen Z (VHS tapes, dial-up, etc. was still around until 2006), but it seems that for the VAST majority researchers, marketers, and demographers, '95 is the start date they've got locked in. Even MSNBC uses 1995-2012.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gen-z-bernie-sanders-answers-the-how-policy-making


I've read that article too. The early years are probably on the cusp for sure, but Gen Z is definitely STARTING to emerge as a new generation, it's just early but you're going to start hearing a lot more about them very soon I have a feeling.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/12/16 at 10:47 pm


Now, I'm not saying 1995-1997 is "purely" Gen Z (VHS tapes, dial-up, etc. was still around until 2006), but it seems that for the VAST majority researchers, marketers, and demographers, '95 is the start date they've got locked in. Even MSNBC uses 1995-2012.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gen-z-bernie-sanders-answers-the-how-policy-making


Sad but true. It would make sense that this upcoming election is the first true Z one too. Since 1994 is the cutoff for Y and at the same damn time the last ones to vote in the 2012 election when Obama was reelected. It makes perfect sense that the 2000 election for George Bush was early Y, the 2004 election for George Bush and the 2008 election for Barack Obama was core Y, and the 2012 election for Obama was late Y. The 1996 election would have been late X. The 1992 and 1988 elections would have been core X, while the 1984 election would have been early X. It makes perfect sense that the pattern is continuing and there's no way around it. There's nothing we can do to stop the demographics from starting Gen Z at 1995. 75% of the articles and demographics start Z at 1995 while 25% start at 2000 or 2001 including ourselves giving opinions on these websites.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/12/16 at 10:52 pm

Another thing I must address. Notice how generations always start with the 0/1 digit number, or the 5/6 digit number. You don't ever see generations start at the 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, or 9. For example. Baby Boomers starts at 1945 or 1946. Generation X starts at 1965 or 1966. Generation Y starts at 1980 or 1981, Generation Z starts at 1995 or 1996, and this upcoming Generation Alpha starts at about 2010 or 2011 but we'll have to see in due time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/12/16 at 10:53 pm


Sad but true. It would make sense that this upcoming election is the first true Z one too. Since 1994 is the cutoff for Y and at the same damn time the last ones to vote in the 2012 election when Obama was reelected. It makes perfect sense that the 2000 election for George Bush was early Y, the 2004 election for George Bush and the 2008 election for Barack Obama was core Y, and the 2012 election for Obama was late Y. The 1996 election would have been late X. The 1992 and 1988 elections would have been core X, while the 1984 election would have been early X. It makes perfect sense that the pattern is continuing and there's no way around it. There's nothing we can do to stop the demographics from starting Gen Z at 1995. 75% of the articles and demographics start Z at 1995 while 25% start at 2000 or 2001 including ourselves giving opinions on these websites.


But you still have to take in account that just as many demographics and articles will say that Millennials were born till 2000 or use age 18/19-34 as an age range for Gen Y. So once again, take what these guys say with a grain of salt. It's how YOU grew up and what YOU experienced, and not some random middle aged man who probably just only likes talking about generations so he could sell sh!t and profit off of the deprived youth...

Generations exist, but they aren't as cut and dry as people make it out to be



Another thing I must address. Notice how generations always start with the 0/1 digit number, or the 5/6 digit number. You don't ever see generations start at the 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, or 9. For example. Baby Boomers starts at 1945 or 1946. Generation X starts at 1965 or 1966. Generation Y starts at 1980 or 1981, Generation Z starts at 1995 or 1996, and this upcoming Generation Alpha starts at about 2010 or 2011 but we'll have to see in due time.


But if that's the case then there's no point of having generations. Besides how could Boomers start at 1945/6, X at 1965/6, & Y NOT to begin at 1985/6? That's the point, Generations on average are about 15-18 years.

Baby Boomers are circa 1946-1964, 18 years.

X is typically 1965-1980, 15 years.

Y could range from being 15 years as an 1980-1995 or 1981-1996, or 18 years with 1981-1999 or the most common being 1982-2000.

So pick your poison

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/12/16 at 10:55 pm


Sad but true. It would make sense that this upcoming election is the first true Z one too. Since 1994 is the cutoff for Y and at the same damn time the last ones to vote in the 2012 election when Obama was reelected. It makes perfect sense that the 2000 election for George Bush was early Y, the 2004 election for George Bush and the 2008 election for Barack Obama was core Y, and the 2012 election for Obama was late Y. The 1996 election would have been late X. The 1992 and 1988 elections would have been core X, while the 1984 election would have been early X. It makes perfect sense that the pattern is continuing and there's no way around it. There's nothing we can do to stop the demographics from starting Gen Z at 1995. 75% of the articles and demographics start Z at 1995 while 25% start at 2000 or 2001 including ourselves giving opinions on these websites.


I don't think you guys (mid to late '90s crowd) are TOTALLY the next generation, but I do think you're setting the early foundation for them. When the '00s borns start coming of age (not long) Gen Z is definitely going to start to be in full bloom.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/12/16 at 11:00 pm


I don't think you guys (mid to late '90s crowd) are TOTALLY the next generation, but I do think you're setting the early foundation for them. When the '00s borns start coming of age (not long) Gen Z is definitely going to start to be in full bloom.


We're cuspers, and nothing more...

Pure Z begins with 00's births, Pure Y ends around the early 90's.

Those from 1995-2000 are on the Cusp of Y & Z, with 1995-1997 leaning Y, and 1998-2000 leaning Z

But it ultimately depends on person to person

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/12/16 at 11:08 pm


Sad but true. It would make sense that this upcoming election is the first true Z one too. Since 1994 is the cutoff for Y and at the same damn time the last ones to vote in the 2012 election when Obama was reelected. It makes perfect sense that the 2000 election for George Bush was early Y, the 2004 election for George Bush and the 2008 election for Barack Obama was core Y, and the 2012 election for Obama was late Y. The 1996 election would have been late X. The 1992 and 1988 elections would have been core X, while the 1984 election would have been early X. It makes perfect sense that the pattern is continuing and there's no way around it. There's nothing we can do to stop the demographics from starting Gen Z at 1995. 75% of the articles and demographics start Z at 1995 while 25% start at 2000 or 2001 including ourselves giving opinions on these websites.


It's not really all that "sad". You guys get described as "realist" and "practical". You already know what Millennials get described as  8-P

In a Canadian context I think mid-90s borns are Millennials, since they got to vote in the 2015 election, which everyone considers a Millennial election. The 18-34 demographic there was 1981-1997, it sort of maps on perfectly.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/12/16 at 11:10 pm

From Wikipedia (Not 100% Accurate, but they have some of the most common sources and definitions)

"Millennials
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Generation Y" redirects here. For other uses, see Generation Y (disambiguation) and Millennials (disambiguation).
Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends; most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.

Contents 
1 Terminology
2 Traits
3 Political views
4 Demographics in the United States
5 Economic prospects
5.1 Peter Pan generation
6 Religion
7 Digital technology
8 Cultural identity
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
Terminology
Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote about the Millennials in Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069, and they released an entire book devoted to them, titled Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. Strauss and Howe are "widely credited with naming the Millennials" according to journalist Bruce Horovitz. In 1987, they coined the term "around the time '82-born children were entering preschool and the media were first identifying their prospective link to the millennial year 2000". Strauss and Howe use 1981 as the Millennials' starting birth year and 2004 as the last birth year.

In August 1993, the phrase Generation Y first appeared in an Ad Age editorial to describe those who were aged 11 or younger as well as the teenagers of the upcoming ten years who were defined as different from Generation X. Since then, the company has sometimes used 1981 as the starting birth year. According to Horovitz, in 2012, Ad Age "threw in the towel by conceding that Millennials is a better name than Gen Y", and by 2014, a past director of data strategy at Ad Age said to NPR "the Generation Y label was a placeholder until we found out more about them".

Alternative names for this group proposed in the past are: Generation We, Global Generation, Generation Next and the Net Generation. Millennials are sometimes also called Echo Boomers, referring to the generation's size relative to the Baby Boomer generation and due to the significant increase in birth rates during the 1980s and into the 1990s. In the United States, birth rates peaked in August 1990 and a 20th-century trend toward smaller families in developed countries continued.

Newsweek used the term Generation 9/11 to refer to young people who were between the ages of 10 and 20 years on 11 September 2001. The first reference to "Generation 9/11" was made in the cover story of the 12 November 2001 issue of Newsweek.

In his book The Lucky Few: Between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom, author Elwood Carlson called Millennials the "New Boomers" (born 1983 to 2001), because of the upswing in births after 1983, finishing with the "political and social challenges" that occurred after the terrorist acts of 11 September 2001, and the "persistent economic difficulties" of the time. Generally speaking, Millennials are the children of Baby Boomers or Generation Xers, while a few may have parents from the Silent Generation.

In 2006, Australian McCrindle Research Center, used 1981 to 2000 as birth dates in a document titled "Report on the Attitudes and Views of Generations X and Y on Superannuation". Separately, McCrindle has also defined "Generation Y" as those born between 1980 to 1994.

In 2013, a global generational study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers with the University of Southern California and the London Business School defined Millennials as those born between 1980 and 1995.

In May 2013, a Time magazine cover story identified Millennials as those born from 1980 or 1981 to 2000.

In 2014, the Pew Research Center, an American think tank organization, defined "adult Millennials" as those who were 18 to 33 years old, born 1981–1996. And according to them, the youngest Millennials are still "in their teens" with "no chronological end point set for them yet".

Also, in 2014, a comparative study from Dale Carnegie Training and MSW Research was released which studies Millennials compared to other generations in the workplace. This study described "Millennial" birth years between 1980–1996.

In 2015, the Pew Research Center also conducted research regarding generational identity. It was discovered that Millennials, or members of Generation Y, are less likely to strongly identify with the generational term when compared to Generation X or to the baby boomers. It was also found that Millennials chose most often to define itself with more negative terms such as self-absorbed, wasteful or greedy. In this 2015 report, Pew defined Millennials with birth years ranging from 1981 onwards.

Chinese Millennials (more commonly called the 1980s and 1990s generations there) were examined and contrasted with American millennials at a 2015 #MillennialMinds conference in Shanghai organized by USC U.S.-China Institute (site has video of presentations). Findings included their marriage, childbearing, and child raising preferences, their life and career ambitions, and their attitudes towards volunteerism and activism.

In Canada, the official body of Statistics Canada has declared 1992 as the last year of birth for Generation Y."







"Generation Z
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Globe icon.
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2016)
Generation Z (also iGen, Post-Millennials, or Plurals) are the cohort of people born after the Millennials. The generation is generally defined with birth years ranging from the mid or late 1990s through the 2010s or from the early 2000s to around 2025.

A significant aspect of this generation is its widespread usage of the internet from a young age. Members of Generation Z are typically thought of as being comfortable with technology, and interacting on social media websites accounts for a significant portion of their socializing. Some commentators have suggested that growing up through the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Great Recession has given the cohort a feeling of unsettlement and insecurity.

Contents 
1 Terminology
2 Demographics in the United States
3 Characteristics
3.1 Technology and social media
4 Education
5 Employment prospects
6 Successors
7 References
8 Further reading
Terminology
Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote several books on the subject of generations and are widely credited with coining the term Millennials. Howe has said "No one knows who will name the next generation after the Millennials". In 2005, their company sponsored an online contest in which respondents voted overwhelmingly for the name Homeland Generation. That was not long after the September 11th terrorist attacks, and one fallout of the disaster was that Americans may have felt more safe staying at home. Howe has described himself as "not totally wed" to the name and cautioned that "names are being invented by people who have a great press release. Everyone is looking for a hook." Howe defines the Homeland Generation as people born from approximately 2005 to 2025.

iGeneration (or iGen) is a name that several individuals claim to have coined, though it "sounds like an adapter used to charge your phone on the bus". Psychology professor and author Jean Twenge claims that the name iGen "just popped into her head" while she was driving near Silicon Valley, and that she had intended to use it as the title of her 2006 book Generation Me until it was overridden by her publisher. Demographer Cheryl Russell claims to have first used the term in 2009.

In 2012, USA Today sponsored an online contest for readers to choose the name of the next generation after the Millennials. The name Generation Z was suggested, although journalist Bruce Horovitz thought that some might find the term "off-putting". Some other names that were proposed included: iGeneration, Gen Tech, Gen Wii, Net Gen, Digital Natives, and Plurals. According to Horovitz, the generation begins roughly around 1995. He also referenced the Strauss and Howe birth dates that begin in 2005.

In 2013, the Nickelodeon channel used the term post-millennials to describe its audience of "children born after 2005".

Frank N. Magid Associates, another advertising and marketing agency, nicknamed this cohort "The Pluralist Generation" or 'Plurals'. These births are said to have started from 1997 into the present day. Turner Broadcasting System also advocated calling the post-millennial generation 'Plurals' instead of Generation Z.

Matt Carmichael, a past director of data strategy at Ad Age, said in 2012 "we think iGen is the name that best fits and will best lead to understanding of this generation". In 2014, an NPR news intern noted that iGeneration "seems to be winning" as the name for the post-Millennials. It has been described as "a wink and nod to Apple's iPod and iPhone", while former Ad Age writer Matt Carmichael notes that the lowercase "i" in iGeneration "leaves room for interpretation" and "could be any number of things: It could be for interactive, it could be for international, it could be for something we haven't thought of yet." In response to naming a generation after a branded product, Randy Apuzzo, technologist and CEO of Zesty.io, published an article titled "Always Connected: Generation Z, the Digitarians", in which he calls the new generation 'Digitarians' because they are the first generation that has been "always connected to the internet" and were raised with touch devices. Statistics Canada has noted that the cohort is sometimes referred to as "the Internet generation," as it is the first generation to have been born after the invention of the Internet.

In Australia, a 2005 report from the McCrindle Research Center used 2001 as the starting point of this generation's birth years. A later McCrindle report in 2009 gave a range of 1995–2009, starting with a recorded rise in birth rates, and fitting their newer definition of a generational span as 15 years. Under this definition McCrindle uses birth rates to determine when a new generation emerges rather than or in addition to sociological changes and trends. Statistics Canada defines the generation as starting in 1993. Speaking at a TEDx event in 2015, Mark McCrindle suggested that Generation Z ended in 2010, terming those born after as "Generation Alpha".NOBODY has any idea where and when Generations Y & Z begin and end. It's perfectly fine to have opinions, but please be mindful that there's no hard cutoff.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/12/16 at 11:13 pm

Another thing is don't take this generation stuff too seriously, it'll probably drive you crazy. They exist and all but it's not really that big of a deal.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/12/16 at 11:24 pm


It's not really all that "sad". You guys get described as "realist" and "practical". You already know what Millennials get described as 8-P


and Plurals or Z stereotypes are 100 times worse than millennials or Y.  :-[

I wish a lot of people would except Z more and let us share our own experiences instead of older generations giving ours, and besides, half of the stuff early Z grew up into the second half of Y did so as well. People just don't want to admit that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/12/16 at 11:30 pm


and Plurals or Z stereotypes are 100 times worse than millennials or Y.  :-[

I wish a lot of people would except Z more and let us share our own experiences instead of older generations giving ours, and besides, half of the stuff early Z grew up into the second half of Y did so as well. People just don't want to admit that.


LOL the Baby Boomers are still constantly hated on (and have been for YEARS) and they're in their 50s and 60s. You think my parents care about the negative stereotypes Baby Boomers have? No. You won't get anywhere if you worry about stuff like that.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/12/16 at 11:34 pm

I'm curious: how do more liberal Boomers feel about being frequently labelled as the "worst generation of all-time" (mostly based on the corrupt politicians who voted for their children to go to the Iraq War, as well as those who "destroyed the economy")? Most of the hatred Millennials (who are clearly mostly liberal) have for Boomers seems to be directed at conservative Boomers ("They're racist, they're sexist, they're evil, they're behind the times, they'll die fading into irrelevancy, etc.").

I'm not saying having conservative viewpoints is bad, but it seems like much of the Internet thinks "anything conservative = bad and wrong" (though there are also tons of people on the Internet who bash liberals).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/12/16 at 11:38 pm

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=baby+boomer

Read these urban dictionary definitions about the Boomers it's hilarious and full of hate.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/12/16 at 11:40 pm

Now, I'm not saying all of my generation are all self-centered or anything, but I hate how some of my peers go "Millennials are not narcissists!" - then follow that up with "We're the tech-savviest, most educated, best generation ever! We're gonna save the world from the evil Republicans, we're so awesome and cool and amazing yeah yeah!"

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/12/16 at 11:45 pm

Boomers and Millennials are two sides of the same coin.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/12/16 at 11:46 pm

I agree. One is left-wing and young - the other is right-wing and elderly.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/12/16 at 11:49 pm


I'm curious: how do more liberal Boomers feel about being frequently labelled as the "worst generation of all-time" (mostly based on the corrupt politicians who voted for their children to go to the Iraq War, as well as those who "destroyed the economy")? Most of the hatred Millennials (who are clearly mostly liberal) have for Boomers seems to be directed at conservative Boomers ("They're racist, they're sexist, they're evil, they're behind the times, they'll die fading into irrelevancy, etc.").

I'm not saying having conservative viewpoints is bad, but it seems like much of the Internet thinks "anything conservative = bad and wrong" (though there are also tons of people on the Internet who bash liberals).


I think they mostly avoid the Internet and our inane discussions  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/12/16 at 11:50 pm

They're also both full of themselves, self-entitled and lazy.

Millennials = Think they're better because they're so educated, tech-savvy, liberal, stylish and accepting.

Boomers = Think they're better because they're so educated, traditional, and uphold "proper values".

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/12/16 at 11:56 pm


They're also both full of themselves, self-entitled and lazy.

Millennials = Think they're better because they're so educated, tech-savvy, liberal, stylish and accepting.

Boomers = Think they're better because they're so educated, traditional, and uphold "proper values".


But... I am better!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/12/16 at 11:58 pm


But... I am better!


Early Millennials are better than Core-Late Millennials but Core-Late Millennials might as well be younger boomers. :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/12/16 at 11:59 pm

Even though I'm a core Millennial, I'll have to agree. I don't see guys in their early-mid 30s bragging about how they're SO much better than older people or pushing "SJW" crap nearly as much.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 12:05 am


Even though I'm a core Millennial, I'll have to agree. I don't see guys in their early-mid 30s bragging about how they're SO much better than older people or pushing "SJW" crap nearly as much.


I have. The older people thing, no but I'm sure you're the dude I told the story way back about the hipster dude yelling at me in public. :-\\

I don't see it as much with my age group, though. It does happen but it's mostly younger millennials.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 12:18 am


Early Millennials are better than Core-Late Millennials but Core-Late Millennials might as well be younger boomers. :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P


No way! Late Millennials have a lot of similarities to the Greatest Generation, like our classy fashion sense, and the ability to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with us  >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 12:20 am


No way! Late Millennials have a lot of similarities to the Greatest Generation, like our classy fashion sense, and the ability to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with us  >:(


Early Millennials are similar to Generation X (the real greatest generation!).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 12:31 am


Early Millennials are similar to Generation X (the real greatest generation!).


What did Gen X do??

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 12:34 am


What did Gen X do??


Released Dookie and Smash.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/13/16 at 12:37 am


Even though I'm a core Millennial, I'll have to agree. I don't see guys in their early-mid 30s bragging about how they're SO much better than older people or pushing "SJW" crap nearly as much.


I'm borderline early/core millennial and I never heard of the term "SJW" before seeing it on this forum (now that I know what it means I can't stand it), don't care about "hipsters" either LOL.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/13/16 at 12:38 am

Slightly off-topic, but anyone notice how Gen X-ers seem to be quite similar to Boomers in musical taste? Even though they were just kids, babies, or not even born yet when 70s "classic rock" was big, it seems to be ingrained into them just as much as it is for Boomers.

For example: my dad listens to The Who quite often in the car, even though he was just a kid when "Won't Get Fooled Again" hit the charts.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 12:40 am


Released Dookie and Smash.


They also released American Idiot and Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace  :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Brian06 on 02/13/16 at 12:43 am

Isn't Gen X supposed to be a bunch of stoner slackers that wear grungy clothes? Is that really a positive stereotype either?  ???  Every generation has a bunch of negative stereotypes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 12:44 am


Isn't Gen X supposed to be a bunch of stoner slackers that wear grungy clothes? Is that really a positive stereotype either?  ???  Every generation has a bunch of negative stereotypes.


Don't forget the record crime and teenage pregnancy rates ;D

Us super duper awesome late millennials though...  8) lowest crime rate since the early 60s!  :D Everyone wants to be a late millennial.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 12:46 am


They also released American Idiot and Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace  :D


Yeah... How about we forget those albums exist? Besides, those albums are for your era anyway. ;D :P

By the way, you listen to any older Offspring? Thoughts?


Isn't Gen X supposed to be a bunch of stoner slackers that wear grungy clothes? Is that really a positive stereotype either?  ???  Every generation has a bunch of negative stereotypes.


Hahaha, if there is one thing I do not like from the 90's, it's Grunge. 8-P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/13/16 at 1:37 am


Yeah... How about we forget those albums exist? Besides, those albums are for your era anyway. ;D :P


Is Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace really that detached from The Offspring's older style?  I think it's easily one of their weakest albums aside from a few tracks, but it at least abstains from the faux-emo aesthetic that was still going strong at the time; well, maybe "Kristy, Are You Doing Okay?" is sort of in that category, but not "Hammerhead," "You're Gonna Go Far Kid," or especially "Trust in You," which to me sounds like it was written during the Smash era.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 2:26 am


Is Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace really that detached from The Offspring's older style?  I think it's easily one of their weakest albums aside from a few tracks, but it at least abstains from the faux-emo aesthetic that was still going strong at the time; well, maybe "Kristy, Are You Doing Okay?" is sort of in that category, but not "Hammerhead," "You're Gonna Go Far Kid," or especially "Trust in You," which to me sounds like it was written during the Smash era.


You're Gonna Go Far Kid? 8-P 8-P 8-P Total Faux-Emo!

I did say in another thread that I thought Hammerhead and Trust in You are some of the only songs on the album that I tolerate (along with Stuff is Messed Up or Sh!t is F*cked Up, as it should be called). Not even though songs are as good as the mighty Smash, though. :(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/13/16 at 8:05 am


LOL the Baby Boomers are still constantly hated on (and have been for YEARS) and they're in their 50s and 60s. You think my parents care about the negative stereotypes Baby Boomers have? No. You won't get anywhere if you worry about stuff like that.


There's a huge difference between being the core part of the generation and actually being at the tail end of one and the beginning of the other. That's the position I'm in including a few others on here. I'm late Y/early Z. So I'm stuck in a weird position which makes things a lot crazier IMO. If I was born a few years earlier or a few years later later I could relax  ;D

This is basically how I feel being on the cusp of Y & Z

https://www.teachengineering.org/collection/cub_/activities/cub_airplanes/cub_airplanes_lesson03_activity2_header_image.gif

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Richbrings2life on 02/13/16 at 8:21 am

http://www.adweek.com/news/television/turner-says-post-millennial-generation-should-be-known-plurals-168994

Can we just face the fact that millennials are those born between 1981-1997 and generation z (kids and teenagers of today) are 1998-2015.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/13/16 at 8:23 am


http://www.adweek.com/news/television/turner-says-post-millennial-generation-should-be-known-plurals-168994

Can we just face the fact that millennials are those born between 1981-1997 and generation z (kids and teenagers of today) are 1998-2015.


Ted Turner?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Richbrings2life on 02/13/16 at 9:21 am

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner

Owner of the turner company, tv, movies and entertainment distribution that provides every best resource for most of the tv channels across the globe: http://www.turner.com/

http://www.turner.com/locations

And entertainment is one of the most important entities next to politics. So it I clear that the millennials are officially not main generation to cater, but rather generation z (plurals) BORN 1998-2015.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 3:35 pm


Yeah... How about we forget those albums exist? Besides, those albums are for your era anyway. ;D :P

By the way, you listen to any older Offspring? Thoughts?

Hahaha, if there is one thing I do not like from the 90's, it's Grunge. 8-P


Hmm, I was in the library when you posted that, so I didn't get to listen to it. Where did you post it again?  ;D


Is Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace really that detached from The Offspring's older style?  I think it's easily one of their weakest albums aside from a few tracks, but it at least abstains from the faux-emo aesthetic that was still going strong at the time; well, maybe "Kristy, Are You Doing Okay?" is sort of in that category, but not "Hammerhead," "You're Gonna Go Far Kid," or especially "Trust in You," which to me sounds like it was written during the Smash era.


I loved that album! Especially You're Gonna Go Far Kid and Let's Hear it for Rock Bottom. But I also liked 21 Guns (especially 21 Guns and The Last of The American Girls from that album) so maybe I shouldn't talk  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 10:42 pm


Hmm, I was in the library when you posted that, so I didn't get to listen to it. Where did you post it again?  ;D


http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=52787.msg3349484#msg3349484 Here you go! Listen n learn, son!


I loved that album! Especially You're Gonna Go Far Kid and Let's Hear it for Rock Bottom. But I also liked 21 Guns (especially 21 Guns and The Last of The American Girls from that album) so maybe I shouldn't talk  ;D


8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/13/16 at 11:01 pm


There's a huge difference between being the core part of the generation and actually being at the tail end of one and the beginning of the other. That's the position I'm in including a few others on here. I'm late Y/early Z. So I'm stuck in a weird position which makes things a lot crazier IMO. If I was born a few years earlier or a few years later later I could relax ;D

This is basically how I feel being on the cusp of Y & Z

https://www.teachengineering.org/collection/cub_/activities/cub_airplanes/cub_airplanes_lesson03_activity2_header_image.gif


lol, what year would it be? ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/13/16 at 11:09 pm


lol, what year would it be? ???


What ever opinion you want it to be. I'll go ahead and cut this conversation. It's best not to worry about it and by heart I'll always feel like a Y/Z cusper. Y are my leaders, while Z are the people I give advice too! It's pretty fun for me.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/13/16 at 11:20 pm


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner

Owner of the turner company, tv, movies and entertainment distribution that provides every best resource for most of the tv channels across the globe: http://www.turner.com/

http://www.turner.com/locations

And entertainment is one of the most important entities next to politics. So it I clear that the millennials are officially not main generation to cater, but rather generation z (plurals) BORN 1998-2015.


Oh wow. Very cool to have Ted Turner give his views. When you have someone who takes part in providing entertainment/tv/movies (things that are made to target specific generations) then it can be hard to argue with their views.  ;D And the fact that the names "Plurals" is used along with the fact that it's in 2016 also lets me know the article is more up to date.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 11:23 pm


http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=52787.msg3349484#msg3349484 Here you go! Listen n learn, son!

8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P


Nothingtown is also really good.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/13/16 at 11:25 pm


What ever opinion you want it to be. I'll go ahead and cut this conversation. It's best not to worry about it and by heart I'll always feel like a Y/Z cusper. Y are my leaders, while Z are the people I give advice too! It's pretty fun for me.


That's pretty awesome! I also want to be an advice giver, but I don't want to sound like a mom/dad to people who're only 5 years younger than me  ;D

I'm not taking any advice from 2000s teens though 8-P ;D Did you listen to the radio in the mid-2000s?!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/13/16 at 11:51 pm


Nothingtown is also really good.


That song isn't awful. Best song on the album is either Trust in You (but this sounds like a cheap Smash knock-off from China) or Sh!t is F*cked Up for sure.


I'm not taking any advice from 2000s teens though 8-P ;D Did you listen to the radio in the mid-2000s?!


This reminds me. Generation X may have made American Idiot and Rise and Fall but it was you core Millennials who consumed it!! :P :P :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 12:04 am


That song isn't awful. Best song on the album is either Trust in You (but this sounds like a cheap Smash knock-off from China) or Sh!t is F*cked Up for sure.

This reminds me. Generation X may have made American Idiot and Rise and Fall but it was you core Millennials who consumed it!! :P :P :P


Hey, I'm not core millennial! You calin' me old?  :P I'm practically not even millennial.

Rise and Fall was decent, quit hating  ;D I agree American Idiot aged pretty badly though. That teen-angst is embarrassing  :-[

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/14/16 at 12:06 am

Good ol' Teen angst. The thing that can only sound good in the era it was created in. Any other era it'll sound stupid.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 12:12 am


Hey, I'm not core millennial! You calin' me old?  :P I'm practically not even millennial.

Rise and Fall was decent, quit hating  ;D I agree American Idiot aged pretty badly though. That teen-angst is embarrassing  :-
Good ol' Teen angst. The thing that can only sound good in the era it was created in. Any other era it'll sound stupid.


Kind of like Nu Metal.

"I was so much an outcast
No one ever liked me cause I wasn't wanted
I was so different from the rest of them all
f*cked up on the drugs, from all the speed
And I never got no sleep
Cause I kept on trippin' over what they said
And everything that my mom said made me mad
And everything that my dad said made me sad"


Yes, those lyrics are real.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/14/16 at 12:15 am



Kind of like Nu Metal.

"I was so much an outcast
No one ever liked me cause I wasn't wanted
I was so different from the rest of them all
f*cked up on the drugs, from all the speed
And I never got no sleep
Cause I kept on trippin' over what they said
And everything that my mom said made me mad
And everything that my dad said made me sad"


Yes, those lyrics are real.


ಠ_ಠ... Oh-oh wow.

And everything that my mom said made me mad
And everything that my dad said made me sad


Sounds like your typical teenager.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 12:23 am


ಠ_ಠ... Oh-oh wow.

And everything that my mom said made me mad
And everything that my dad said made me sad


Sounds like your typical teenager.


There's more!

"Why are you trying to make fun of me?!
You think it's funny
What the f*ck you think it's doing to me?!
You take your turn lashing out at me
I want you crying when you're dirty in the front of me"


Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/14/16 at 12:34 am


There's more!

"Why are you trying to make fun of me?!
You think it's funny
What the f*ck you think it's doing to me?!
You take your turn lashing out at me
I want you crying when you're dirty in the front of me"



I can't believe those actually were considered "lyrics" at one point in time. ಠ_ಠ In 2016 the Y2K years sure those seem silly.  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 12:43 am


I can't believe those actually were considered "lyrics" at one point in time. ಠ_ಠ In 2016 the Y2K years sure those seem silly.  ;D


I dunno what's sillier: Nu Males or Nu Metal! ;D

2002:
"Cause she is watchin' wrestling
Creamin' over tough guys
Listenin' to rap metal
Turntables in her eyes

It's like a bad movie
She is lookin' through me
If you were me, then you'd be
Screamin' "Someone shoot me!"
As I fail miserably,
Tryin' to get the girl all the bad guys want.
She's the girl all the bad guys want!"


2016:
"Cause she is watchin' foreign films
Creamin' over femme guys
Listenin' to indie pop
Ukuleles in her eyes

It's like bad Netflix
She is lookin' through me
If you were me, then you'd be
Screamin' "Someone shoot me!"
As I fail miserably,
Tryin' to get the girl all the hipster guys want.
She's the girl all the hipster guys want!"

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 12:46 am


Oh right! You missed out on that age bracket by one/years! You later agers still consumed it along with your Cork Trees and your Black Parades. :P

It's better than later-era Green Day and worlds better than Days Go By, I'll give it that but it had Kirsty Are You Doing Ok and that song is one of the worst things I've ever heard. "Everyone's so full of sh!t! Born and rasied by hypocrites!" Jesus, the only thing worse than the lyrics is the video. Only the Pop Punk of 2000-2002 as aged gracefully with all his bleached haired glory.

Kind of like Nu Metal.

"I was so much an outcast
No one ever liked me cause I wasn't wanted
I was so different from the rest of them all
f*cked up on the drugs, from all the speed
And I never got no sleep
Cause I kept on trippin' over what they said
And everything that my mom said made me mad
And everything that my dad said made me sad"


Yes, those lyrics are real.


I'm officially pioneer Z as of now ;D

Early 2000s pop punk has both aged badly and aged well. On one hand a lot of the lyrics are cringey, on the other hand I remember a lot of people hating on it in the actual early 2000s yet a lot of it has hit "old is gold" status.

And the lyrics to Simple Plan's I'm Just a Kid

I woke up it was 7, I waited till 11
Just to figure out that no one would call
I think I've got a lot of friends but I don't hear from them
What's another night all alone?
When you're spending everyday on your own
And here it goes

I'm just a kid and life is a nightmare
I'm just a kid, I know that it's not fair
Nobody cares, cause I'm alone and the world is having more than me
Tonight


I refuse to sing this in the year of our Lord 2016  ;D ;D :P :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 12:52 am


I'm officially pioneer Z as of now ;D

Early 2000s pop punk has both aged badly and aged well. On one hand a lot of the lyrics are cringey, on the other hand I remember a lot of people hating on it in the actual early 2000s yet a lot of it has hit "old is gold" status.

And the lyrics to Simple Plan's I'm Just a Kid

I woke up it was 7, I waited till 11
Just to figure out that no one would call
I think I've got a lot of friends but I don't hear from them
What's another night all alone?
When you're spending everyday on your own
And here it goes

I'm just a kid and life is a nightmare
I'm just a kid, I know that it's not fair
Nobody cares, cause I'm alone and the world is having more than me
Tonight


I refuse to sing this in the year of our Lord 2016  ;D ;D :P :P


Us early Millennials had the best of it all. Nu Metal, Pop Punk, bad Teen Pop, bad Urbany Post-Teen Pop, American Pie films, spiky hair etc., etc.

Early 2000's Pop Punk is the last great era! >:( Sum 41, blink-182, Home Grown, MxPx, Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, old Green Day, old Offspring! All the last real bands! Man, I miss Pop Punk from 1994-2003... :(

Early 00's had the best lyrics:
"Stop acting like you're sad, I hate to hear you cry
You're like an episode of "Days of our Lives'
If you don't get your way, you'll whine and complain
Superficialistic, please go away!

And I wasted all my time
Waiting up for you
To make up your mind

I am sick of stupid girls
I am sick of stupid girls
I am sick of stupid girls"


Better than these Edgar Allen Poe wannabe's of the Real 2000's:
"She says she's no good with words but I'm worse
Barely stuttered out a joke of a romantic stuck to my tongue
Weighed down with words too over-dramatic
Tonight it's "It can't get much worse"
Vs. "No one should ever feel like..."

I'm two quarters and a heart down
And I don't want to forget how your voice sounds
These words are all I have so I'll write them
So you need them just to get by

Dance, dance
We're falling apart to half time
Dance, dance
And these are the lives you love to lead
Dance, this is the way they'd love
If they knew how misery loved me"
8-P 8-P 8-P 8-P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 12:56 am

Is that Dance Dance by Fall Out Boy? I don't care what you say, that album has aged amazingly well :P That is hitting definitely on track for Old Is Gold status and you can't stop it.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 1:00 am


Is that Dance Dance by Fall Out Boy? I don't care what you say, that album has aged amazingly well :P That is hitting definitely on track for Old Is Gold status and you can't stop it.


.....Yes, it is.....

I think the album's aged like milk! With clumps, too. >:( I will do the best I can to stop it from becoming "old is gold" along with the rest of 'em! American Idiot already hit "old is gold" in 2010 or 2011 for some reason even though it's the absolute worst Pop Punk album of our time. Enough is enough!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 1:07 am


.....Yes, it is.....

I think the album's aged like milk! With clumps, too. >:( I will do the best I can to stop it from becoming "old is gold" along with the rest of 'em! American Idiot already hit "old is gold" in 2010 or 2011 for some reason even though it's the absolute worst Pop Punk album of our time. Enough is enough!


In Canada/Quebec we make poutine and other delicious food out of cheese curds (which comes from sour milk 'clumps') so that's a good thing :P

Did American Idiot hit old is gold status? I still like Jesus of Suburbia, but the American Idiot song makes no sense! What is "everybody do the propoganda!" supposed to mean  ;D I just needed to vent my anti-George Bush teen angst, it has served its purpose  >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/14/16 at 1:11 am


I dunno what's sillier: Nu Males or Nu Metal! ;D

2002:
"Cause she is watchin' wrestling
Creamin' over tough guys
Listenin' to rap metal
Turntables in her eyes

It's like a bad movie
She is lookin' through me
If you were me, then you'd be
Screamin' "Someone shoot me!"
As I fail miserably,
Tryin' to get the girl all the bad guys want.
She's the girl all the bad guys want!"


2016:
"Cause she is watchin' foreign films
Creamin' over femme guys
Listenin' to indie pop
Ukuleles in her eyes

It's like bad Netflix
She is lookin' through me
If you were me, then you'd be
Screamin' "Someone shoot me!"
As I fail miserably,
Tryin' to get the girl all the hipster guys want.
She's the girl all the hipster guys want!"



I'm not gonna lie... those 2016 lyrics actually looked pretty legit for a second.  :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 1:17 am


In Canada/Quebec we make poutine and other delicious food out of cheese curds (which comes from sour milk 'clumps') so that's a good thing :P

Did American Idiot hit old is gold status? I still like Jesus of Suburbia, but the American Idiot song makes no sense! What is "everybody do the propoganda!" supposed to mean  ;D I just needed to vent my anti-George Bush teen angst, it has served its purpose  >:(


Yeah, my uncle eats poutines all the time. It's pretty good for sour milk but Cork Tree is not. Cork Tree is like moldy cheese or something. I'll say this: it's much better than a Fever You Can't Sweat Out. Panic at the Disco are like Fall Out Boy but for people who need something sh!ttier to listen to.

Yeah, all the kids love it because it's a "classic". Green Day became the worst band ever during that era. They spent the entire time just riding off the success of that album, stealin' wads of cash from the kids parents and not worrying about making a new album because American Idiot was so "symbolic". That, along with Rock Against Bush, is the reason I would provoke "tru Punx" dudes at shows by telling them how "Pro-Bush" (even though I wasn't :P) It was. It's just a buncha political posturing! As if the guy who sang Longview is going to be the rally call to the new revolution! How many "political" songs are on the album? Two! >:(


I'm not gonna lie... those 2016 lyrics actually looked pretty legit for a second.  :o


Haha, I got rad writing skills!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 1:47 am


Yeah, my uncle eats poutines all the time. It's pretty good for sour milk but Cork Tree is not. Cork Tree is like moldy cheese or something. I'll say this: it's much better than a Fever You Can't Sweat Out. Panic at the Disco are like Fall Out Boy but for people who need something sh!ttier to listen to.

Yeah, all the kids love it because it's a "classic". Green Day became the worst band ever during that era. They spent the entire time just riding off the success of that album, stealin' wads of cash from the kids parents and not worrying about making a new album because American Idiot was so "symbolic". That, along with Rock Against Bush, is the reason I would provoke "tru Punx" dudes at shows by telling them how "Pro-Bush" (even though I wasn't :P) It was. It's just a buncha political posturing! As if the guy who sang Longview is going to be the rally call to the new revolution! How many "political" songs are on the album? Two! >:(

Haha, I got rad writing skills!


Panic! at the Disco are awesome too  :D

The political posturing was appropriate for the time :P You were just too old for teen-angst.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 1:51 am


Panic! at the Disco are awesome too  :D

The political posturing was appropriate for the time :P You were just too old for teen-angst.


Fall Out Boy and Panic at the Disco are the Creed and Nickelback of "Pop Punk". :P

I was, like, 22 when that came out! When's teen angst supposed to end, anyway?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 2:02 am


Fall Out Boy and Panic at the Disco are the Creed and Nickelback of "Pop Punk". :P

I was, like, 22 when that came out! When's teen angst supposed to end, anyway?


But they're emo not pop-punk  :o

Err, isn't it supposed to end at like 15, 16?  ;D I just got done with being 22, I graduated high school almost 6 years ago. What are you doing with teen-angst at 22? :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 2:07 am


But they're emo not pop-punk  :o

Err, isn't it supposed to end at like 15, 16?  ;D I just got done with being 22, I graduated high school almost 6 years ago. What are you doing with teen-angst at 22? :P


Emo!? >:(

Real Emo:
http://designermagazine.tripod.com/JimmyEatWorldPIC2.jpg

I don't think Panic at the Disco or Fall Out Boy look like Jimmy Eat World over here!

At 22, I was too busy being pissed off at Green Day for betraying the "been-here-since-1994" Pop Punk brotherhood with American Idiot while my girlfriend (now wife) would tell me "what's the big deal? it's not like they were real Punk in the first place" :\'(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 2:22 am


Emo!? >:(

Real Emo:

I don't think Panic at the Disco or Fall Out Boy look like Jimmy Eat World over here!

At 22, I was too busy being pissed off at Green Day for betraying the "been-here-since-1994" Pop Punk brotherhood with American Idiot while my girlfriend (now wife) would tell me "what's the big deal? it's not like they were real Punk in the first place" :\'(


Real emo look like the most boring, non-descript people ever  :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 2:23 am


Real emo look like the most boring, non-descript people ever  :P


Come on, are you telling me that if you were my age, you wouldn't look like this from 1995-2003?

http://www.dobi.nu/yourscenesucks/prehistoric/scene.jpg

Or would you rather the Sum 41 look?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 2:43 am


Come on, are you telling me that if you were my age, you wouldn't look like this from 1995-2003?

http://www.dobi.nu/yourscenesucks/prehistoric/scene.jpg

Or would you rather the Sum 41 look?


I have argyle sweaters now  :o am I unknowingly participating in 90s revival?  First I was unknowingly scene and now I'm unknowningly 90s revival  :(

In the early 2000s I was wearing plaid and other button-up shirts mostly, but my mom was dressing me. It's actually not too different from how I dress now, just replace baggy dickies and jeans for skinnies  :o Fashion comes in cycles eh.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 2:47 am


I have argyle sweaters now  :o am I unknowingly participating in 90s revival?  First I was unknowingly scene and now I'm unknowningly 90s revival  :(

In the early 2000s I was wearing plaid and other button-up shirts mostly, but my mom was dressing me. It's actually not too different from how I dress now, just replace baggy dickies and jeans for skinnies  :o


Haha, pretty much. The whole Emo revival of today is all hipsters nostalgic for the 90's and early 00's (they do it wrong, though).

Button-up shirts work for Emo as Jimmy Eat world wore a lot of them. Do you wear the chains, too? It's not early 00's enough unless you wear the chains!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 12:04 pm


Haha, pretty much. The whole Emo revival of today is all hipsters nostalgic for the 90's and early 00's (they do it wrong, though).

Button-up shirts work for Emo as Jimmy Eat world wore a lot of them. Do you wear the chains, too? It's not early 00's enough unless you wear the chains!


LOL but I'm not doing a 90s revival! I'm original god damnit  >:(

Err, I don't see any chains in that pictures? Are you talking about the keychain or are you talking about chain necklaces?  :P

I used to have a neon chunky-bead lanyard sticking out my backpocket in the late 2000s. Does that count? I should probably bring that back, but I don't really go for that schoolboy look anymore lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 1:22 pm


Hey, I'm not core millennial! You calin' me old?  :P I'm practically not even millennial.

Rise and Fall was decent, quit hating  ;D I agree American Idiot aged pretty badly though. That teen-angst is embarrassing  :-[

You're practically millennial to me! ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/14/16 at 1:33 pm

I may be on the cusp of core and late Generation Y, but I'm completely ashamed of my generation and wish I was born a late X'er instead.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 2:02 pm


You're practically millennial to me! ;)


You callin' me old?  >:(

I was obssessed with leather jackets and converse shoes in high school. Not sideway caps and popped collars  8-P 8-P

http://tcritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/n209816_33677730_4144.jpg

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 3:04 pm


I may be on the cusp of core and late Generation Y, but I'm completely ashamed of my generation and wish I was born a late X'er instead.

Why are you ashamed?! ??? :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/14/16 at 3:05 pm


Why are you ashamed?! ??? :o


Probably because of the obsessive 90s kids who think that anything after the 90s were garbage.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 3:26 pm


Probably because of the obsessive 90s kids who think that anything after the 90s were garbage.

Yeah they're full of sheesh! >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 3:38 pm

I'll say this though, if I had been born just a year(1994) earlier things would have definitely changed for me. But in the long run rather than the short run. ;)
First off, I would have had a different first grade teacher(the one I had was a replacement for the old first grade teacher that retired >:( ) The first grade teacher I had was TERRIBLE! >:( Also I would have reached my peak childhood in 1999 instead of 2000, which means I would have watched Cartoon Network earlier. I also would have gotten more N64 games, I would have gotten the N64 in 1998 instead of 1999. I would have gotten the PS2 probably in 2001 instead of 03. I also would have been a grade schooler when 9/11 happened. I would have gotten into wrestling a bit earlier as well. 1999 would have been my first Chicago trip not 2000. The 2003-04 school year would have been the last school year I was heavily invested in the kids networks, 2004-05 school year I would have started to transition away from it, instead of the 2005-06 school year originally. 
Those would have probably happened.

Now regarding my teen years that would have changed immensely. I would have been in high school before the 00s ended. I would have been able to vote for Obama in 2012. I would have left high school before the transitional 2013-14 school year.(2012-13 was transitional as well ;) ). Also, The entire mid 2010s would have also been most of my early 20s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/14/16 at 3:52 pm


Why are you ashamed?! ??? :o


Because my generation is the main proponent of the narrow-minded and hypocritical SJW culture we have today, as well as ridiculous social media trends that suck imagination and individuality out of everything.  People like you, who come here to reminisce about the 90s and early 2000s, don't factor into that population.  I loved the stuff I grew up with during the millennial era, but after that, popular culture just hasn't been the same as it was in the 80s or 90s (though there still some good things from 2003-2011).  I'm not a big fan of most American music after 2002 (especially 2012 on), I'm sick of the whole superhero movie craze, I can't stand modern fashion trends like hipster outfits, tattoos, and side buzzes; and I think a lot of the most popular shows, like Orange Is the New Black, are really overrated.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 4:01 pm


Because my generation is the main proponent of the narrow-minded and hypocritical SJW culture we have today, as well as ridiculous social media trends that suck imagination and individuality out of everything.  People like you, who come here to reminisce about the 90s and early 2000s, don't factor into that population.  I loved the stuff I grew up with during the millennial era, but after that, popular culture just hasn't been the same as it was in the 80s or 90s (though there still some good things from 2003-2011).  I'm not a big fan of most American music after 2002 (especially 2012 on), I'm sick of the whole superhero movie craze, I can't stand modern fashion trends like hipster outfits, tattoos, and side buzzes; and I think a lot of the most popular shows, like Orange Is the New Black, are really overrated.

This all the way! 2013 was the last year I really enjoyed! :\'(  I love the superhero movie trend though! ::)  But yeah Pop culture has not been THE same a long time. The mid 2010s are MUCH worse than the mid 2000s were. I can't stand this politically correct society we are in today. Gaming has become over exposed and commercialized. >:( Tv is kinda getting stale, it started last year honestly. :( Sports is STILL great though! :) But yeah the only tv shows I keep up with are Walking Dead, GOT, Arrow, Flash, Suits, Americans, Ray Donovan, Masters of Sex, etc. After the 2013-14 season things culturally speaking took a downturn and politically and lifestyle wise; the mid 2010s have been characterized by violence and scandals. 8-P

But back our generation, yeah I just don't get them sometimes, and they can be frustrating to be in the presence of at times.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/14/16 at 4:02 pm


Because my generation is the main proponent of the narrow-minded and hypocritical SJW culture we have today, as well as ridiculous social media trends that suck imagination and individuality out of everything.  People like you, who come here to reminisce about the 90s and early 2000s, don't factor into that population.  I loved the stuff I grew up with during the millennial era, but after that, popular culture just hasn't been the same as it was in the 80s or 90s (though there still some good things from 2003-2011).  I'm not a big fan of most American music after 2002 (especially 2012 on), I'm sick of the whole superhero movie craze, I can't stand modern fashion trends like hipster outfits, tattoos, and side buzzes; and I think a lot of the most popular shows, like Orange Is the New Black, are really overrated.


My generation is also like that, but at least I'm not some 2002-03 baby who thinks making Vines are cool. Seriously, I think my generation seems terrible, because at least yours can remember a time during Myspace, early Newgrounds, 90s cartoons, etc. My generation is just full of tech-savvy teens who do nothing but the latest Vine, YouTube, or Twitter trends. And don't even get me started on 2010s kids.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 4:21 pm


I'll say this though, if I had been born just a year(1994) earlier things would have definitely changed for me. But in the long run rather than the short run. ;)
First off, I would have had a different first grade teacher(the one I had was a replacement for the old first grade teacher that retired >:( ) The first grade teacher I had was TERRIBLE! >:( Also I would have reached my peak childhood in 1999 instead of 2000, which means I would have watched Cartoon Network earlier. I also would have gotten more N64 games, I would have gotten the N64 in 1998 instead of 1999. I would have gotten the PS2 probably in 2001 instead of 03. I also would have been a grade schooler when 9/11 happened. I would have gotten into wrestling a bit earlier as well. 1999 would have been my first Chicago trip not 2000. The 2003-04 school year would have been the last school year I was heavily invested in the kids networks, 2004-05 school year I would have started to transition away from it, instead of the 2005-06 school year originally. 
Those would have probably happened.

Now regarding my teen years that would have changed immensely. I would have been in high school before the 00s ended. I would have been able to vote for Obama in 2012. I would have left high school before the transitional 2013-14 school year.(2012-13 was transitional as well ;) ). Also, The entire mid 2010s would have also been most of my early 20s.


Those don't sound like huge differences to me, except the N64 being your main childhood console instead of the PS2. You favourite childhood game would have been Mario Party 2 like me  :D ;D ;D

1) I don't think you're completely sure that the last first grade teacher wasn't awful as well  :P But we all get crappy teachers sometimes, I doubt 94ers in your school had a free ride.
2) A lot of the shows airing in 2000 were airing in 1999 as well. Although you would have been more into Pokémania like my brother (born March '94). He started "dating" this chick who gave him free Pokémon cards and toys. He didn't even know her name for the longest time while they were dating LOL He just wanted free stuff.
3) Most '94ers didn't have a great understanding of 9/11 of the time. I can say that because not even '92/'93ers cared all that much. I thought planes crashing into buildings was normal. That's what too much Starfox 64 does to ya.
4) I think your Chicago trip would still have occurred in 2000  :P
5) Me and my '94er brother caught the last season of Friends while it was still airing. Other than that, I don't think one more year of watching adult/teen TV changes all that much. It was still the same era :P Did you watch Desperate Housewives and Prison Break?  ;D

6) 2009-10 and 2010-11 school year were the same, except the latter has more smartphones. If you were early '94 and got in at 2008-09, then things might be slightly different, but even that year was transitional haha.
7) Being able to vote for Obama sounds pretty cool though.
8 ) There's not much difference between being 18/19 and your early 20s from my personal experience.

Overall I don't think being 2-3 years apart makes a massive difference. Though there are definitely those little things  ;)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 4:24 pm


Those don't sound like huge differences to me, except the N64 being your main childhood console instead of the PS2. You favourite childhood game would have been Mario Party 2 like me :D ;D ;D

1) I don't think you're completely sure that the last first grade teacher wasn't awful as well  :P But we all get crappy teachers sometimes, I doubt 94ers in your school had a free ride.
2) A lot of the shows airing in 2000 were airing in 1999 as well. Although you would have been more into Pokémania like my brother (born March '94). He started "dating" this chick who gave him free Pokémon cards and toys. He didn't even know her name for the longest time while they were dating LOL He just wanted free stuff.
3) Most '94ers didn't have a great understanding of 9/11 of the time. I can say that because not even '92/'93ers cared all that much. I thought planes crashing into buildings was normal. That's what too much Starfox 64 does to ya.
4) I think your Chicago trip would still have occurred in 2000  :P
5) Me and my '94er brother caught the last season of Friends while it was still airing. Other than that, I don't think one more year of watching adult/teen TV changes all that much. It was still the same era :P Did you watch Desperate Housewives and Prison Break?  ;D

6) 2009-10 and 2010-11 school year were the same, except the latter has more smartphones. If you were early '94 and got in at 2008-09, then things might be slightly different, but even that year was transitional haha.
7) Being able to vote for Obama sounds pretty cool though.
8 ) There's not much difference between being 18/19 and your early 20s from my personal experience.

Overall I don't think being 2-3 years apart makes a massive difference. Though there are definitely those little things  ;)

Well....Super Mario 64, Sonic the Hedgehog and Jak & Daxter are my 3 favorite childhood games.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 4:29 pm


Well....Super Mario 64, Sonic the Hedgehog and Jak & Daxter are my 3 favorite childhood games.


But yeah, imagine playing Mario Party 2 at sleepovers with your friends. That game is amazing fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS4H8hI5i-E

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/14/16 at 4:30 pm


I'll say this though, if I had been born just a year(1994) earlier things would have definitely changed for me. But in the long run rather than the short run. ;)
First off, I would have had a different first grade teacher(the one I had was a replacement for the old first grade teacher that retired >:( ) The first grade teacher I had was TERRIBLE! >:( Also I would have reached my peak childhood in 1999 instead of 2000, which means I would have watched Cartoon Network earlier. I also would have gotten more N64 games, I would have gotten the N64 in 1998 instead of 1999. I would have gotten the PS2 probably in 2001 instead of 03. I also would have been a grade schooler when 9/11 happened. I would have gotten into wrestling a bit earlier as well. 1999 would have been my first Chicago trip not 2000. The 2003-04 school year would have been the last school year I was heavily invested in the kids networks, 2004-05 school year I would have started to transition away from it, instead of the 2005-06 school year originally. 
Those would have probably happened.


Wow lol. This was a bizarre post. I think my 2nd & 4th grade classes in elementary school were the best and I made the most friends out of those classes. However, from Kindergarten thru 2nd grade I used to get yelled by teachers a lot or get my clip moved because I didn't cooperate in class or wasn't focusing. My 2nd grade teacher straightened us out a lot and looking back I give her so much credit for how she shaped me as a kid, which made my behavior a lot better throughout 3rd-5th grade. When it comes to 1st grade, we can somewhat relate, it was probably my least favorite class & teacher of elementary school, but I still speak to my 1st grade teacher today and she's a really nice woman in person. She's always excited to see me too whenever I see her at the store sometimes. However, when I was in there sometimes I felt like I had a bad temper because there were a few kids who made fun of me including this one girl who was a huge b**tch and my 1st grade teacher would do nothing about it but when she snitched on me I'd have to set out for recess for 10 minutes..... I remember when I kept pulling on a girl's hair in there and the teacher made me write a letter to her as a punishment, and another day where it was a lot worse, but I don't remember the specific situation. I had a great time in 1st grade personal life and pop culturally. From K-2nd grade I always had bad temper days in class once or twice a month but I still appreciate the teachers for helping me out though. Now 4th grade was the first full grade I started having to worry about homework a lot more, and I remember my teacher complaining for not getting my binder organized ;D and speaking of CN, had I been born a year earlier or two I would've not only started watching the channel earlier, but I would have experienced the golden age a lot longer for more elementary school years. Instead of it being cutoff the summer before 3rd grade began.

For me personally.

Difficulty level from hardest to easiest: 5th grade >>>> 4th grade >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd & 3rd grade >>>> Kindergarten & 1st grade

Teachers: 3rd grade >>>> 2nd grade >>>> Kindergarten >>>> 4th grade >>>> 5th grade >>>> 1st grade

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 4:32 pm


But yeah, imagine playing Mario Party 2 at sleepovers with your friends. That game is amazing fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS4H8hI5i-E

You just brought back memories! :D  I remember the ball and lava level! :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/14/16 at 4:35 pm


This all the way! 2013 was the last year I really enjoyed! :\'(  I love the superhero movie trend though! ::)  But yeah Pop culture has not been THE same a long time. The mid 2010s are MUCH worse than the mid 2000s were. I can't stand this politically correct society we are in today. Gaming has become over exposed and commercialized. >:( Tv is kinda getting stale, it started last year honestly. :( Sports is STILL great though! :) But yeah the only tv shows I keep up with are Walking Dead, GOT, Arrow, Flash, Suits, Americans, Ray Donovan, Masters of Sex, etc. After the 2013-14 season things culturally speaking took a downturn and politically and lifestyle wise; the mid 2010s have been characterized by violence and scandals. 8-P


I didn't like Spring & Summer 2013, but Fall 2013 through Summer 2014 was great for me, and 2014 was the last year I really enjoyed. 2016 has started off much better than 2015 so far for me. Sports will always be great for me as long as these teams keep giving me great college football & NFL seasons, which is sadly over! I usually don't get into basketball until March Madness comes along. I agree with all the shows you listed, most I keep up with on Netflix, and a lot of the Walking Dead series has been filmed in my hometown and county. I don't care what people say but the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the modern DC Comics are both an epic part of 2010's culture, and I just saw Deadpool yesterday and *SPOILER*!!!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/14/16 at 4:42 pm


Wow lol. This was a bizarre post. I think my 2nd & 4th grade classes in elementary school were the best and I made the most friends out of those classes. However, from Kindergarten thru 2nd grade I used to get yelled by teachers a lot or get my clip moved because I didn't cooperate in class or wasn't focusing. My 2nd grade teacher straightened us out a lot and looking back I give her so much credit for how she shaped me as a kid, which made my behavior a lot better throughout 3rd-5th grade. When it comes to 1st grade, we can somewhat relate, it was probably my least favorite class & teacher of elementary school, but I still speak to my 1st grade teacher today and she's a really nice woman in person. She's always excited to see me too whenever I see her at the store sometimes. However, when I was in there sometimes I felt like I had a bad temper because there were a few kids who made fun of me including this one girl who was a huge b**tch and my 1st grade teacher would do nothing about it but when she snitched on me I'd have to set out for recess for 10 minutes..... I remember when I kept pulling on a girl's hair in there and the teacher made me write a letter to her as a punishment, and another day where it was a lot worse, but I don't remember the specific situation. I had a great time in 1st grade personal life and pop culturally. From K-2nd grade I always had bad temper days in class once or twice a month but I still appreciate the teachers for helping me out though. Now 4th grade was the first full grade I started having to worry about homework a lot more, and I remember my teacher complaining for not getting my binder organized ;D and speaking of CN, had I been born a year later or two I would've not only started watching the channel earlier, but I would have experienced the golden age a lot longer for more elementary school years. Instead of it being cutoff the summer before 3rd grade began.

For me personally.

Difficulty level from hardest to easiest: 5th grade >>>> 4th grade >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd & 3rd grade >>>> Kindergarten & 1st grade

Teachers: 3rd grade >>>> 2nd grade >>>> Kindergarten >>>> 4th grade >>>> 1st grade

Funny thing is I could have went into either greater detail! ;D ;D ;D ;D Anyways, when I first got to my school, the 1st grade-5th grade teachers at my school were LEGENDS, my 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th had been there since the 70s and 80s. :o  3rd grade teacher got there in the 90s I think. I'm glad I had almost all of them. Been born a year earlier I would have had them all.
Teachers: 5th grade>>>>>>3rd grade>>>>>>4th grade>>2nd grade>>>1st grade>Kindergarten>pre K (Obviously! ;D )

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 5:25 pm


LOL but I'm not doing a 90s revival! I'm original god damnit  >:(

Err, I don't see any chains in that pictures? Are you talking about the keychain or are you talking about chain necklaces?  :P

I used to have a neon chunky-bead lanyard sticking out my backpocket in the late 2000s. Does that count? I should probably bring that back, but I don't really go for that schoolboy look anymore lol.


No way! You're jocking the old style! :P

Yes. The keychain. We had to wear at least some that that had the word "chain" in it.

No! That is too late 2000's! You've gotta do it all, thick glasses (do you have those?), cuff jeans, converse, bowl cuts, argyle vests (Which you have) do it! Help me bring back the mighty 90's-early 00's!!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 6:12 pm


No way! You're jocking the old style! :P

Yes. The keychain. We had to wear at least some that that had the word "chain" in it.

No! That is too late 2000's! You've gotta do it all, thick glasses (do you have those?), cuff jeans, converse, bowl cuts, argyle vests (Which you have) do it! Help me bring back the mighty 90's-early 00's!!

The sweater looked nice, I didn't buy it because it was emo  8-P You know how hard it was to deny being emo when I was in high school. I have natural black hair. Now it's all coming back to haunt me.  :\'(

I don't wear glasses. Cuff jeans don't look good with skinny jeans. I have converse! Bowl cuts are weird. Only 90s thing I want back is flannel. They look warm  ;D

Also isn't dressing early 2000s kind of hipster??  :P :P :P :P :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 6:17 pm


The sweater looked nice, I didn't buy it because it was emo  8-P You know how hard it was to deny being emo when I was in high school. I have natural black hair. Now it's all coming back to haunt me.  :\'(

I don't wear glasses. Cuff jeans don't look good with skinny jeans. I have converse! Bowl cuts are weird. Only 90s thing I want back is flannel. They look warm  ;D

Also isn't dressing early 2000s kind of hipster??  :P :P :P :P :P


But this is the real pre-2004 Emo! The good emo! You don't have to deal with your Aiden, From First to Last and Hawthorne Heights stuff! No Myspace in this era! You get The Get Up Kids, Taking Back Sunday, Jimmy Eat World, Knapsack and The Promise Ring!

They're not that warm unless you get the ones with the extra layer inside. :P I thought this look would be totally up your alley! You've already do the converse! If not a bowl cut, a buzz cut or one of those weird parted hair cuts (Like Jim from JEW has) works, too! You will take the world by storm with your 90's nostalgia and I will help you be as authentic as possible!

No way!!! Dressing early 00's is not hipster at all! I hope you ain't callin' me a hipster or nothin'!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 7:14 pm


But this is the real pre-2004 Emo! The good emo! You don't have to deal with your Aiden, From First to Last and Hawthorne Heights stuff! No Myspace in this era! You get The Get Up Kids, Taking Back Sunday, Jimmy Eat World, Knapsack and The Promise Ring!

They're not that warm unless you get the ones with the extra layer inside. :P I thought this look would be totally up your alley! You've already do the converse! If not a bowl cut, a buzz cut or one of those weird parted hair cuts (Like Jim from JEW has) works, too! You will take the world by storm with your 90's nostalgia and I will help you be as authentic as possible!

No way!!! Dressing early 00's is not hipster at all! I hope you ain't callin' me a hipster or nothin'!


I don't want to be emo anything  ;D Although I can't deny the dude in that picture is very well dressed. But I try not to copy other people's styles, because then new stuff comes out and then I have to copy that. It gets outdated very quickly. I have to be a fashion pioneer  8) That's why I bought the Oxford pants.

Are you speaking from experience with the flannel there?  :P I have one flannel shirt actually, I bought it when I was in high school. It's pretty thick and warm.

Early 2000s is a sort of alternative hipster. Your friend agrees with me  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 7:19 pm


I don't want to be emo anything  ;D Although I can't deny the dude in that picture is very well dressed. But I try not to copy other people's styles, because then new stuff comes out and then I have to copy that. It gets outdated very quickly. I have to be a fashion pioneer  8) That's why I bought the Oxford pants.

Are you speaking from experience with the flannel there?  :P I have one flannel shirt actually, I bought it when I was in high school. It's pretty thick and warm.

Early 2000s is a sort of alternative hipster. Your friend agrees with me  ;D


How about this? First you can be Ska, right? And then you go Emo! You'll be so original!!!!

Yeah, back in the early 90's. I stopped wearing flannel around 1994-1995 when I started getting into more Green Day and Offspring. :P

He is not my "friend" he is an acquaintance! >:( Early 00's clothing is too cool to be alternative hipster! Hipsters are all snobby and pretentious whereas I'm Xtreme!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 11:30 pm


How about this? First you can be Ska, right? And then you go Emo! You'll be so original!!!!

Yeah, back in the early 90's. I stopped wearing flannel around 1994-1995 when I started getting into more Green Day and Offspring. :P

He is not my "friend" he is an acquaintance! >:( Early 00's clothing is too cool to be alternative hipster! Hipsters are all snobby and pretentious whereas I'm Xtreme!


I only have a vague understanding of what Ska is, but I already saw your comic. You tryna fool me? That's the least original thing ever. :P

I just finished listening to the Offspring songs you recommended. Come Out and Play and I Choose were my favourites!  :D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 11:33 pm


I only have a vague understanding of what Ska is, but I already saw your comic. You tryna fool me? That's the least original thing ever. :P

I just finished listening to the Offspring songs you recommended. Come Out and Play and I Choose were my favourites!  :D


It's very original! Everyone will think you're so unique for doing it, trust me! By the way, you want me to recommend you some Ska, too? I added some Ska Punk albums on that big "List of Albums" for you to listen to but if you need more I can give you the goods. ;D

Oh rad! Those songs rule. See? Much better than Rise and Fall! The old Offspring is the best Offspring.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/14/16 at 11:35 pm


It's very original! Everyone will think you're so unique for doing it, trust me! By the way, you want me to recommend you some Ska, too? I added some Ska Punk albums on that big "List of Albums" for you to listen to but if you need more I can give you the goods. ;D

Oh rad! Those songs rule. See? Much better than Rise and Fall! The old Offspring is the best Offspring.


I finished listening to Jimmy Eat World's Static album a while ago, there's so many good songs on that one. I think 77 Satellites, Rockstar, In the Same Room, Seventeen and Robot Factory were my favourite. Digits was hillarious lol.

I'm listening to Lit's A Place In The Sun album now, since I'm already somewhat familiar with that album. It's already going to take me the whole year to finish that list of yours, but you may as well add it I guess  ;D I need to listen to songs three or four times before I decide if I like it.  :o

edit: I like old Offspring just as much as new Offspring right now :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/14/16 at 11:39 pm


I finished listening to Jimmy Eat World's Static album a while ago, there's so many good songs on that one. I think 77 Satellites, Rockstar, In the Same Room, Seventeen and Robot Factory were my favourite. Digits was hillarious lol.

I'm listening to Lit's A Place In The Sun album now, since I'm already somewhat familiar with that album. It's already going to take me the whole year to finish that list of yours, but you may as well add it I guess  ;D


Super stoked you like it! It's definitely one of the best Emo records of all time. Man, it just went over everyone's heads! Even today! Why! It's so good!

Oh yeah, that record is sick! What records have you listened to so far (if you haven't yet. It is a big list!)

For some good Ska, I'd start with some Less Than Jake. Listen to their Losing Streak and Hello Rockview albums. Good, good sh!t my friend. Good, good sh!t indeed!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/15/16 at 12:24 am


Super stoked you like it! It's definitely one of the best Emo records of all time. Man, it just went over everyone's heads! Even today! Why! It's so good!

Oh yeah, that record is sick! What records have you listened to so far (if you haven't yet. It is a big list!)

For some good Ska, I'd start with some Less Than Jake. Listen to their Losing Streak and Hello Rockview albums. Good, good sh!t my friend. Good, good sh!t indeed!


Haha yes. It also padded up my 90s playlist as well. Before that I only had some Gin Blossoms and like 2 Nirvana songs LOL

Well, before I added it to my "to listen to" playlist, I already had listened to My Own Worst Enemy and Miserable. I just listened to No Big Thing and The Best Is Yet to Come Undone. Very decent so far.

Are those guys on the giant list you made? That's my reference guide right now  ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 12:34 am


Haha yes. It also padded up my 90s playlist as well. Before that I only had some Gin Blossoms and like 2 Nirvana songs LOL

Well, before I added it to my "to listen to" playlist, I already had listened to My Own Worst Enemy and Miserable. I just listened to No Big Thing and The Best Is Yet to Come Undone. Very decent so far.

Are those guys on the giant list you made? That's my reference guide right now  ;D


By "90's playlist" do you mean 1990-1998? Remember, if TheEarly90sguy taught us anything it's
80's = 1978-1990
90's = 1990-1999
00's = 1999-2011
10's = 2011-present

Ooooorrrr, you could do it the Jordan way (the real factual way! >:() and put 1993-2003 as your 90's playlist.

The whole album is pretty rad. It's got some metally influences here and there too (which almost every band seemed to do back then!).

Yeeepp! I think I put a couple of ska bands at the end but Less Than Jake are definitely on the list.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/15/16 at 12:55 am


By "90's playlist" do you mean 1990-1998? Remember, if TheEarly90sguy taught us anything it's
80's = 1978-1990
90's = 1990-1999
00's = 1999-2011
10's = 2011-present


Here are some ideal songs to include on those playlists:

1980s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW046HsrCfk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsoa0tAzPUM

1990s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3hmgkPYUuk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb2MRZRq7XA

2000s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBcADQziQWY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1_uwJQSpoo

2010s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDTpnsHyNnY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSSYisgN7I

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 1:10 am


Here are some ideal songs to include on those playlists:

1980s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW046HsrCfk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsoa0tAzPUM

1990s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3hmgkPYUuk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb2MRZRq7XA

2000s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBcADQziQWY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1_uwJQSpoo

2010s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDTpnsHyNnY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSSYisgN7I


Once again, you have made me spit out my drink. I love this post!

This is how I define the 80's to 10's altogether:

The 80's:

http://thevistapress.com/wp-content/uploads/American-Bandstand.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01929/benny_1929841c.jpg

(the only things of the 80's that are 80's culture. EVERYTHING ELSE WAS MEANT FOR THE 90'S!!! THESE ARE THE FACTS!!!!)

The 90's:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Official_Portrait_of_President_Reagan_1981.jpg

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2014/media/164375/_original/1035x1152-T8DTEMU_EC001_H.JPG

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/transformers-geewun.jpg

http://www.motleycruenorway.net/FanClub/025.JPG

But remember, pre-93:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/1b80abd550ba0776055a245938439318/tumblr_mnslkny9l31rrg6kro1_500.jpg

Post-93:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61MBcUwrUfL.jpg

The 00's:
http://www.alternativenation.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/nirvanasmear.jpg

http://socialmediaweek.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2015/06/1990s-grunge-wear.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/Green_Day_-_Dookie_cover.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9a/DazedConfused.jpg/220px-DazedConfused.jpg

And finally, the 10's:

http://d3819ii77zvwic.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/george-w-bush-saul-loeb-afp.jpg

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/artists/50-cent.jpg

http://souljaboy.seenon.com/img/product/cats/00025362-734715.jpg



Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/15/16 at 2:44 am

I'll agree with ThatEarly90sGuy that the late 70s had certain "foreshadowings" of the 80s, though 70s culture (disco, AOR rock, etc.) was still quite prominent at the time.

Even though this song was released in 1979, it sounds VERY 80s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldyx3KHOFXw

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 2:47 am


I'll agree with ThatEarly90sGuy that the late 70s had certain "foreshadowings" of the 80s, though 70s culture (disco, AOR rock, etc.) was still quite prominent at the time.

Even though this song was released in 1979, it sounds VERY 80s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldyx3KHOFXw


I also agree but he acts like the 80's starting in 1978 is some definite thing. I mean, it is his opinion and all so maybe he sees something though his eyes that I don't but I have to disagree. In my opinion, the definite 80's began right as 1981 rolled around. 1978-1980 feels like a transition period.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/15/16 at 2:53 am

I also agree with him that the early 90s - heck, maybe even up to 1996, was something of a "continuation" of the late 80s (though this happens with every decade, where the beginning is similar to the last decade, then the end is completely different).

Arcades and 2d gaming were dominant over 3d gaming. SNES and Genesis were the logical successors to NES and Master System. 80s cartoons were still being re-run prominently and watched on VHSes before fading into obscurity. etc. etc.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 3:00 am


I also agree with him that the early 90s - heck, maybe even up to 1996, was something of a "continuation" of the late 80s (though this happens with every decade, where the beginning is similar to the last decade, then the end is completely different).

Arcades and 2d gaming were dominant over 3d gaming. SNES and Genesis were the logical successors to NES and Master System. 80s cartoons were still being re-run prominently and watched on VHSes before fading into obscurity. etc. etc.


I can see why you'd say that and that makes a lot of sense. The things you mentioned are definitely successors to the 80's things. It's like the 6th gen. I strongly consider those systems the successors to the 5th gen as they continued the same vibe. But back to the 80's, up until 1996, you'd still see some 80's hairstyles (mostly for women) and maybe some 80's sounding songs on the radio. I wouldn't really say the 90's were like the 80's (well, they kinda were since all the popular 90's things are just underground 80's things made mainstream and aren't really as authentic as the 80's) but I definitely see the connection.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/15/16 at 3:07 am

Out of all the times you grew up in, which do you think is best: the late 80s/early 90s (87-92), the "real" 90s (93-97), or the Y2K era (98-2003)? This must be a tough choice. ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 3:10 am


Out of all the times you grew up in, which do you think is best: the late 80s/early 90s (87-92), the "real" 90s (93-97), or the Y2K era (98-2003)? This must be a tough choice. ;D


It's pretty tough but I'd have to go with the 80's for sure. The Y2K era and the real 90's are equally great but there is something about the 80's that I love. Not even really relating to my childhood. Growing up in Norcal and being apart of the Pop Punk scene in the 90's-early 00's, you'd hear from a lot of 60's born Gen X'ers about how the scene was really good from 1986 with the beginnings of Gilman (a Punk club) and Lookout records. I'd love to go back and experience that especially for a band like Screeching Weasel in their absolute prime (which was 1988-1994). I love the TV and movies from the time, too. Bill and Ted is one of the best. Skateboarding was also totally rad then, too. I wish I was a little bit older so I could experience this time. My favorite era of Pop Culture altogether is 1977-2003.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/15/16 at 2:29 pm

My view on generations (varies depending on person). If there are errors, please feel free to correct them.

1883-1898: Lost Gen
1899-1902: Lost/GI
1903-1923: GI Gen
1924-1927: GI/Silent
1928-1941: Silent
1942-1945: Silent/Boomer
1946-1960: Baby Boomer
1961-1964: Boomer/X cusp
1965-1977: Gen X
1978-1981: X/Y cusp, Gen Catalano
1982-1997: Gen Y
1998-2001: Y/Z cusp, Gen Katniss
2002+: Gen Z

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/15/16 at 3:12 pm


I'll agree with ThatEarly90sGuy that the late 70s had certain "foreshadowings" of the 80s, though 70s culture (disco, AOR rock, etc.) was still quite prominent at the time.

Even though this song was released in 1979, it sounds VERY 80s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldyx3KHOFXw


Gary Numan could've waited a few more years to release the song. ???

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/15/16 at 6:49 pm


Here are some ideal songs to include on those playlists:

2010s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSSYisgN7I


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NmxSv-brC-I/UMoh1F7A_2I/AAAAAAAAD6s/Z1whmiDv2ts/s1600/stop-stop.gif

STOP defiling my 2010s! There's no Soulja Boy in it!!  8-P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/15/16 at 6:51 pm


By "90's playlist" do you mean 1990-1998? Remember, if TheEarly90sguy taught us anything it's
80's = 1978-1990
90's = 1990-1999
00's = 1999-2011
10's = 2011-present

Ooooorrrr, you could do it the Jordan way (the real factual way! >:() and put 1993-2003 as your 90's playlist.

The whole album is pretty rad. It's got some metally influences here and there too (which almost every band seemed to do back then!).

Yeeepp! I think I put a couple of ska bands at the end but Less Than Jake are definitely on the list.


I had to extend the 2000s to be 1994-2011 because the Offspring stuff sounded way too early 2000s for me to put it on the other playlist  LOL. But it's still mostly 1999-2011  :P :P :P :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 7:04 pm


I had to extend the 2000s to be 1994-2011 because the Offspring stuff sounded way too early 2000s for me to put it on the other playlist  LOL. But it's still mostly 1999-2011  :P :P :P :P


Haha, then it is settled! The early 00's started in 1994!! ;D

If you've got 1998 stuff on there like Home Grown, The Ataris or MxPx then you might have some trouble fitting 1998 in with the rest of the 90's, too. ;D


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NmxSv-brC-I/UMoh1F7A_2I/AAAAAAAAD6s/Z1whmiDv2ts/s1600/stop-stop.gif

STOP defiling my 2010s! There's no Soulja Boy in it!!  8-P


No, no, no. If we're going by Early90sGuy rules then there has to be Soulja Boy and when someone disagrees, you've got to start yelling about how they weren't born yet ooooorrrrr about how God works in mysterious ways and he planned out Pop Culture like this to take place.

Examples:


I don't know why everyone else in the world appears to like '93-'99 so much. Like 80s fan say, "The true 90s are overrated". 1993 WAS NOT EARLY 90S. YOU WEREN'T THERE. I CAN TELL BECAUSE YOU SAID IT LOOKS LIKE THE EARLY 90s TO YOU. 1993 IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE MID 90S.  1993 WAS THE YEAR OF GANGSTA RAP AND GRUNGE. I dislike that year will all of my hate. >:(



I'm positive about the styles as I WAS THERE! Those were not universally 90s styles. YOU WEREN'T EVEN ALIVE BEFORE 1993! HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME THOSE WERE UNIVERSAL 90S STYLES?! Those crappy shows you mentioned are not a part of mid 90s pop culture! When we look back on 1993, we do not say to ourselves, "Wow, that Wonder Years rip-off of a vehicle for Ben Savage premiered in 1993"? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT POP CULTURE IS?!

No, flannel wasn't the only thing that made the mid 90s dark. The mid 90s were the "Grunge days" of the 90s. You couldn't go anywhere without being reminded that Kurt Cobain died. When the news coverage wasn't on, My So Called Life was. Ugh, K-Mart sold flannel for some time in 1995 and '96.

YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT 1993 WAS A PART OF THE EARLY 90S. AS SOON AS HW BUSH LEFT OFFICE, THE EARLY 90S WERE OVER! AS SOON AS CLINTON CAME IN, AN OVERLOAD OF GRUNGE AND GANGSTA RAP MUSIC FOLLOWED.


Then, if someone tries to argue with you some more, you tell them this:

STOP IMPOSING YOUR BELIEFS ON ME!


Oh and don't forget to this classic:

I am correct. After all, I'm the Early 90s Guy, don't you think I should know when they took place?! I'm not going to let two younger folks tell me when the early 90s ended. They were babies  and children, therefore they can say nothing on the subject. All they can do is look at what was listed in a book and call it fact despite being way too young to experience it. Of course, everyone, including yourself, takes their side and is out to make me look nuts when I know what I'm talking about. Thanks.



So basically, the mid-late 90s were associated with the 2000s? I can get that 1999 was the start of the cultural 2000s, but not 1994-1998. They were mostly associated with the 90s.


Well, in my opinion 1998 is more like the early 00's (not the real 2000's that began in 2004) and not really like the years before it but if someone wants to compare the mid 90's to the early 00's then they are allowed to have that opinion. It's not the definite truth or absolute fact like my opinion is but oh well... ::)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/15/16 at 7:07 pm


My view on generations (varies depending on person). If there are errors, please feel free to correct them.

1883-1898: Lost Gen
1899-1902: Lost/GI
1903-1923: GI Gen
1924-1927: GI/Silent
1928-1941: Silent
1942-1945: Silent/Boomer
1946-1960: Baby Boomer
1961-1964: Boomer/X cusp
1965-1977: Gen X
1978-1981: X/Y cusp, Gen Catalano
1982-1997: Gen Y
1998-2001: Y/Z cusp, Gen Katniss
2002+: Gen Z


That's interesting but why do the last four have cusps? And why couldn't they be added to the previous generation or the following one.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/15/16 at 7:10 pm


I had to extend the 2000s to be 1994-2011 because the Offspring stuff sounded way too early 2000s for me to put it on the other playlist  LOL. But it's still mostly 1999-2011  :P :P :P :P


So basically, the mid-late 90s were associated with the 2000s? I can get that 1999 was the start of the cultural 2000s, but not 1994-1998. They were mostly associated with the 90s.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/15/16 at 7:56 pm


That's interesting but why do the last four have cusps? And why couldn't they be added to the previous generation or the following one.


By what I have seen, a lot of people seem to put three or four years in cusp zones. Four years seems to be balanced in my opinion.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/15/16 at 8:25 pm


Haha, then it is settled! The early 00's started in 1994!! ;D

If you've got 1998 stuff on there like Home Grown, The Ataris or MxPx then you might have some trouble fitting 1998 in with the rest of the 90's, too. ;D

No, no, no. If we're going by Early90sGuy rules then there has to be Soulja Boy and when someone disagrees, you've got to start yelling about how they weren't born yet ooooorrrrr about how God works in mysterious ways and he planned out Pop Culture like this to take place.

Examples:

Then, if someone tries to argue with you some more, you tell them this:
Oh and don't forget to this classic:
Well, in my opinion 1998 is more like the early 00's (not the real 2000's that began in 2004) and not really like the years before it but if someone wants to compare the mid 90's to the early 00's then they are allowed to have that opinion. It's not the definite truth or absolute fact like my opinion is but oh well... ::)


LOL wow those meltdowns are epic. The dude might be weird but at least his years are good for music categorization :P :P

1993 is still early 90s by my playlist rules though, I wonder what he has to say that ;D

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/15/16 at 8:27 pm


So basically, the mid-late 90s were associated with the 2000s? I can get that 1999 was the start of the cultural 2000s, but not 1994-1998. They were mostly associated with the 90s.


I know. I was just putting some 90s songs in my 2000s playlist because they fit too well there. Y'know "song that sound like they came out of the wrong era" stuff. I honestly don't know why I group things by decade. It's easier than grouping by genre or mood though lol.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/15/16 at 8:28 pm


LOL wow those meltdowns are epic. The dude might be weird but at least his years are good for music categorization :P :P

1993 is still early 90s by my playlist rules though, I wonder what he has to say that ;D


His arguments are the best. If it were up to me, he'd be on here everyday having endless arguments. This is the stuff of legends.

Probably this:
1993 WAS NOT EARLY 90S. YOU WEREN'T THERE. I CAN TELL BECAUSE YOU SAID IT LOOKS LIKE THE EARLY 90s TO YOU. 1993 IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE MID 90S.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/16/16 at 5:53 pm


His arguments are the best. If it were up to me, he'd be on here everyday having endless arguments. This is the stuff of legends.

Probably this:


Wait, did you make those posts up, or is that what he actually said?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/16/16 at 5:57 pm


Wait, did you make those posts up, or is that what he actually said?


I'm pretty sure that's what TheEarly90sGuy said. He basically has a pet peeve for anyone saying that 1993 was an early 90s year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/16/16 at 6:09 pm


I'm pretty sure that's what TheEarly90sGuy said. He basically has a pet peeve for anyone saying that 1993 was an early 90s year.
He did. And that's something he doesn't understand. That year is definitely early 90s as the vibe was still there. Yeah, its core 90s, but it doesn't mean it was part of the middle. Even adults have said that year is early 90s. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: musicguy93 on 02/16/16 at 6:59 pm


He did. And that's something he doesn't understand. That year is definitely early 90s as the vibe was still there. Yeah, its core 90s, but it doesn't mean it was part of the middle. Even adults have said that year is early 90s.


Kind of like how 1997 was both a core and late 90s year.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/16/16 at 7:29 pm


Kind of like how 1997 was both a core and late 90s year.
Yeah and so was 1998. Yes, those years were late 90s, but they were still core 90s as well. I think some people don't realize that mid and core are not synonymous with each other. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/16/16 at 7:35 pm


Wait, did you make those posts up, or is that what he actually said?


Nope! They're 100% real! Check his post history, it's all there. The only reason I can't properly quote is because the topics are locked. Unlocked topics are fine.

This one's a gem. He always talks about the Turtles yet he says...


These guys are what killed Saturday morning cartoons:

https://mylittlebexi.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/saved-by-the-bell.jpg

Teens and their younger brothers would much rather gaze at Kelly Kapowski then watch The Real Ghostbusters.


He's right, though. Looking at Kelly Kapowski was fun but I think he's lying. He seems like the type to much rather "gaze" at mutant trutles or giant transforming robots.

This one is also another gem:


Children of the 90s talking down to the children of the 2000s? Ha! That's the pot calling the kettle black. There must not be enough children of the 80s to remind "the 90s kids" the 90s were extremely boring. I doubt "the 90s kids" would be able to take all of the talk about the 80s actually having original ideas in them. Most Millenials I know are pansies.  They would probably say something like, "The 90s did not suck". Yet, most of them could not even define the 90s. I doubt people born in '88 and up could even tell you there were two presidents in office from 1990-1999. They love shouting that they're bona fide children of the 1990s.


If you're a Millennial, you're probably a pansy according to this Early 90s guy!

He loves to say that, too. "According to this Early 90s Guy everything after 1993 sucks!"

Case in point...

Yeah, I always liked the packaging for the TMNT toyline. Three illustrations were featured on the backer and then when you looked to the right of the last picture, you saw the figure. It was a neat idea because there are four turtles.

Have you heard of the Might Morphin' Power Rangers film that is due out next year? The mid 90s revival is in full swing, it seems. Being The Early 90s Guy, I don't see how anyone could ever want the mid 1990s back. They weren't much different from today in terms of dress code, entertainment and political issues. I guess this is supposed to be the decade where '90s kids' get nostalgic for the times of their youth.


Yep, I was making it up. Me being the Early 90s guy and all....

I think the OP meant, "Pop culturally were the late 90s darker than the early 90s"? In that case, yes they were. You are correct about one thing. There were high crime rates and a recession in the early 90s. Our recession was nowhere near as bad as the early 80s one.



Being The Early 90s Guy, I'll never love any year after 1992 the way I do '90-'92. I thought late '10 was the best part of the decade thus far. As 2010 was slowly morphing into 2011, some of the most memorable pop culture of the decade was churned out. Think about it, the fall of 2010 gave us "Instagram, Keep Calm and Carry On, Adventure Time, Lego Minifigures in toy stores, The Walking Dead, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and YOLO frozen yogurt". It was the most innovative part of the 2010s decade. 2011 will always be the true start of the 2010s decade, so 2010 was in the middle of that period starting in 2008 and the beginning of the 10s.

The only year that competes with late 2010 is 2013. '13 starts off as one large continuation to 2012. The last episodes to the first and best season of Scandal were shown. America was still ranting and raving about "The Hobbit". They were doing the Gangham style dance to "Call Me Maybe" on the dance floor. Mothers everywhere were going, "How cute is that Honey Boo Boo"?  Sadly, George Zimmerman got away with murdering young Trayvon Martin. Most importantly, "Orange Is the New Black" premiered on Netflix. 2012 was indeed explosive with "50 Shades of Grey", but almost everyone I know is doing their crazy eyes impression right now.



For this early 90s guy, 1993-1999 happened and ruined everything.


It's like being the "Early 90s Guy" makes you the definitive source on the early 90s. ;D I love it. Dude's f*ckin' hilarious! I could read these posts all day. I'm gonna look for the ones where he yells about Jesus and how there have been no cultural changes since 1993.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/16/16 at 9:14 pm

I love how TheEarly90sGuy despises all culture from January 20, 1993 on, yet he still argues passionately about how the entire 2000s were defined by the spirit of '99, which includes things like Pokémania, Pottermania, pre-revival Family Guy, American Pie sequels (except American Reunion), tamagotchis, boybands, Britney Spears makeup kits, Men in Black II, Jurassic Park III, Nirvana shirts, and DVD releases of films from 1990-1998.  Also, George W. Bush was merely leading us to American troops still being in Iraq and Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden being slain in 2011; Get Rich or Die Tryin' was but the first real precurssor to Curtis Jackson starring in Blood Out, Setup, and All Things Fall Apart in 2011; All BlackBerry phones released throughout the decade were paving the way for the BlackBerry Bold 9788's release in 2011.

It's like apparently popular culture was no longer for his generation by then, yet he still thinks he understands it better than those who actually consumed it.  I suppose, too, that Frozen and Amazon Prime Video are not significant yet, and that they're simply meant for 2022.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/16/16 at 9:23 pm


I love how TheEarly90sGuy despises all culture from January 20, 1993 on, yet he still argues passionately about how the entire 2000s were defined by the spirit of '99, which includes things like Pokémania, Pottermania, pre-revival Family Guy, American Pie sequels (except American Reunion), tamagotchis, boybands, Britney Spears makeup kits, Men in Black II, Jurassic Park III, Nirvana shirts, and DVD releases of films from 1990-1998.  Also, George W. Bush was merely leading us to American troops still being in Iraq and Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden being slain in 2011; Get Rich or Die Tryin' was but the first real precurssor to Curtis Jackson starring in Blood Out, Setup, and All Things Fall Apart in 2011; All BlackBerry phones released throughout the decade were paving the way for the BlackBerry Bold 9788's release in 2011.

It's like apparently popular culture was no longer for his generation by then, yet he still thinks he understands it better than those who actually consumed it.  I suppose, too, that Frozen and Amazon Prime Video are not significant yet, and that they're simply meant for 2022.


I remember this one time he said "sequels are a sign of the times. There we no 90's sequels before 1999" and I brought up Scream 2 and Lost World and then he said "That is to show a sign of the times that 1999 was heading our way. 1999 is the true start of the 2000's" which makes no sense. Scream 2 and Lost World are exempt from these rules in the "Book of Early 90s Guy" just like American Reunion because they're released too early/late. His rule is based off of sequel releases, isn't it!? Why are things exempt!? God damn Early 90s Dude... The best is when he doesn't know what to say and brings the "creator" into it. "GOD'S WORK IS IN EVERYTHING!"

He isn't just a definitive source on the early 90's but all pop culture since the 60's. How the f*ck is American Bandstand or the Benny Hill Show 80's things!? ;D ;D ;D ;D Where in his theory does it say that?? ::) Wouldn't 70's things be 80's things!? It's like, since 1990 is closest to the 80's, he made up new rules just for this decade and this decade alone. Why? Because 1990, that's why. He said 2017 will bring changes that will bring us to the 2020's or something in his post history but I forget the page.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/16/16 at 9:27 pm


You could pop off their arms ands legs too. The realistic feeling skin made them so slammin' and sweet (pardon my early 90s slang). They were the best action figures of the early 90s, if you ask me. They go for a lot on Ebay now, but they turn up in action figure lots from time to time. Have you seen the Movie Star Splinter with the fur made of felt? I used to take my cousin to get all of the latest TMNT action figures, so I knew all about them. Rhazar was one of the hardest figures to find.


.........

http://freeiconbox.com/icon/256/31032.png

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/16/16 at 11:20 pm


I remember this one time he said "sequels are a sign of the times. There we no 90's sequels before 1999" and I brought up Scream 2 and Lost World and then he said "That is to show a sign of the times that 1999 was heading our way. 1999 is the true start of the 2000's" which makes no sense. Scream 2 and Lost World are exempt from these rules in the "Book of Early 90s Guy" just like American Reunion because they're released too early/late. His rule is based off of sequel releases, isn't it!? Why are things exempt!? God damn Early 90s Dude... The best is when he doesn't know what to say and brings the "creator" into it. "GOD'S WORK IS IN EVERYTHING!"


Where is your source of evidence, Wikipedia?  Everybody I ever met in my hometown knew that 1999 was the only year that all 2000s culture could be found on t-shirts and supermarket shelves.  If it wasn't for Jurassic Park and its sequel, we wouldn't have this in 1999:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Warpath_Jurassic_Park.jpg

I rest my case. ;)

He isn't just a definitive source on the early 90's but all pop culture since the 60's. How the f*ck is American Bandstand or the Benny Hill Show 80's things!? ;D ;D ;D ;D

The 1980s were the first decade that Billy Preston's "Space Race" was used during the mid-breaks in American Bandstand since day 1 (even after they stopped using it in 1987, episodes with the theme still existed in 1990), as well as the first decade that the Thames era of the Benny Hill Show was on television from the beginning.  Not that you should be questioning any of this anyway; you weren't alive for the entirety of the 80s, so you don't understand the spirit of '78 the way TheEarly90sGuy does, having been 1 at the time. :)

Where in his theory does it say that?? ::) Wouldn't 70's things be 80's things!? It's like, since 1990 is closest to the 80's, he made up new rules just for this decade and this decade alone. Why? Because 1990, that's why. He said 2017 will bring changes that will bring us to the 2020's or something in his post history but I forget the page.


Considering how obsessed he is with 1990 though, he sure doesn't know how to explicitly define it.  He makes this huge point about the latter months of the year being very different from the first, yet he still firmly believes we suddenly began heading for 1999 as soon as the clock struck midnight on January 1, 1990 - that is, unless it was when the intro to The Simpsons first aired alongside the Bart the Genius episode about two weeks later, I'm not sure.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/16/16 at 11:32 pm


Where is your source of evidence, Wikipedia?  Everybody I ever met in my hometown knew that 1999 was the only year that all 2000s culture could be found on t-shirts and supermarket shelves.  If it wasn't for Jurassic Park and its sequel, we wouldn't have this in 1999:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Warpath_Jurassic_Park.jpg

I rest my case. ;)


Clumsy me. It's like American Pie. As the Early 90s Guy says:

On a side note, American Pie: The Full Reveal was sold in Australia for 11 months in 2010 and all of 2011.  ;)


What year did American Pie premier? 1999. ;)

More 1999 things:

blink-182's Enema of the State.

What was released in 2011?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bb/Blink-182_-_Neighborhoods_cover.jpg/220px-Blink-182_-_Neighborhoods_cover.jpg ;)

How about some KoRn?

Issues came out in 1999. Huh, what came out in 2011?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/Korn_Path_of_Totality.jpg/220px-Korn_Path_of_Totality.jpg

Ah, yes, I see it. It's 2000's culture, the spirit of 1999. coming full circle. If you don't believe me it's probably because you read Wikipedia. The 2000's are 2000 to 2009 and when Jimmy says jump, I jump.


The 1980s were the first decade that Billy Preston's "Space Race" was used during the mid-breaks in American Bandstand since day 1 (even after they stopped using it in 1987, episodes with the theme still existed in 1990), as well as the first decade that the Thames era of the Benny Hill Show was on television from the beginning.  Not that you should be questioning any of this anyway; you weren't alive for the entirety of the 80s, so you don't understand the spirit of '78 the way TheEarly90sGuy does, having been 1 at the time. :)


Clumsy me. I was only born in 1982! How could I understand the spirit of 1978 like The Early 90s Guy, who was born in 1977, does! I'm just some no-good wikipedia reader. When Jimmy says jump, I jump.


Considering how obsessed he is with 1990 though, he sure doesn't know how to explicitly define it.  He makes this huge point about the latter months of the year being very different from the first, yet he still firmly believes we suddenly began heading for 1999 as soon as the clock struck midnight on January 1, 1990 - that is, unless it was when the intro to The Simpsons first aired alongside the Bart the Genius episode about two weeks later, I'm not sure.


It's weird because his older posts say things like "Coming from a guy who flashes back to 1991 everyday" and "1991 is my favorite year". Why'd he change his mind? One of his major points is that he was there to experience the early 90's and that's where his knowledge comes from but when I asked him why his older posts say "1990-1992 are extensions of 1989" he told me "That's when I didn't properly understand the early 90s" He's always had the weird 1990 theory but he's only recently dropped the co-existing "extension of 1989" theory. Makes no sense.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/17/16 at 12:02 am


Clumsy me. It's like American Pie. As the Early 90s Guy says:
What year did American Pie premier? 1999. ;)

More 1999 things:

blink-182's Enema of the State.

What was released in 2011?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bb/Blink-182_-_Neighborhoods_cover.jpg/220px-Blink-182_-_Neighborhoods_cover.jpg ;)


I suppose these are all meant for 2011 as well, then:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Blink-182_-_Buddha_re-release_cover.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Blink-182_-_Cheshire_Cat_cover.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Blink-182_-_Dude_Ranch_cover.jpg

Yes, even the song "Dammit," which was a big radio hit in early '98.  We wouldn't have bothered listening to "After Midnight" in 2011 if "Dammit" had never come out.

This, however, ain't nearly of the same caliber as everything above:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Blink-182_-_Dogs_Eating_Dogs_cover.jpg

How about some KoRn?

Issues came out in 1999. Huh, what came out in 2011?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/Korn_Path_of_Totality.jpg/220px-Korn_Path_of_Totality.jpg


All of these also led us to 2011:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Korn-Korn.jpghttp://loudwire.com/files/2014/01/Life-is-Peachy.jpghttp://loudwire.com/files/2015/08/618XpMB6XrL._SY300_.jpghttp://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/album_review/0858b1a0e78ea45035699a00ae9181ae34a6470a.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/616VBY3GMlL._SY300_.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Korn_-_See_You_on_the_Other_Side.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61IRrinv9IL._SY300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/713PvoKjw2L._SX355_.jpg

However, leave this insignificant piece of has-been rubbish out of the discussion, since it's not in the same vein as KoRn's older work:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Paradigm-shift-e1374855234732.jpg


Ah, yes, I see it. It's 2000's culture, the spirit of 1999. coming full circle. If you don't believe me it's probably because you read Wikipedia. The 2000's are 2000 to 2009 and when Jimmy says jump, I jump.

Even in 2009, the spirit of '99 was still alive and well.

It's weird because his older posts say things like "Coming from a guy who flashes back to 1991 everyday" and "1991 is my favorite year". Why'd he change his mind? One of his major points is that he was there to experience the early 90's and that's where his knowledge comes from but when I asked him why his older posts say "1990-1992 are extensions of 1989" he told me "That's when I didn't properly understand the early 90s" He's always had the weird 1990 theory but he's only recently dropped the co-existing "extension of 1989" theory. Makes no sense.


The only difference between 1989 and 1990-1991 is that the latter two years were already heading for 1999, whereas the spirit of 1978 was still relevant in 1989.  Although actually, I can't remember whether the spirit of '78 was finito by 1990 or if stores everywhere were totally flooded with Star Wars and Garfield merchandise during that time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 12:11 am


I suppose these are all meant for 2011 as well, then:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Blink-182_-_Buddha_re-release_cover.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Blink-182_-_Cheshire_Cat_cover.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Blink-182_-_Dude_Ranch_cover.jpg

Yes, even the song "Dammit," which was a big radio hit in early '98.  We wouldn't have bothered listening to "After Midnight" in 2011 if "Dammit" had never come out.

This, however, ain't nearly of the same caliber as everything above:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Blink-182_-_Dogs_Eating_Dogs_cover.jpg


If I told him about Dammit, he would say "Jordan, the 2000's began in 1999 as that's when Transformers went off the shelves in favor of Pokemon cards and dial-up internet. In 1998, the turtles were on our TV screen. That is not the case for 1999. Our creator works in many ways and it is up to him to decide where we go" He likes to brag about being there so much yet I was actually there when stuff like Dammit was being released. He won't have it, though. He probably knows more about Pop Punk than a guy who saw pre-Enema blink like me.

Dogs Eating Dogs? 8-P Neighborhoods was pretty bad, too. Let's forget about both of those.


All of these also led us to 2011:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Korn-Korn.jpghttp://loudwire.com/files/2014/01/Life-is-Peachy.jpghttp://loudwire.com/files/2015/08/618XpMB6XrL._SY300_.jpghttp://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/album_review/0858b1a0e78ea45035699a00ae9181ae34a6470a.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/616VBY3GMlL._SY300_.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Korn_-_See_You_on_the_Other_Side.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61IRrinv9IL._SY300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/713PvoKjw2L._SX355_.jpg

However, leave this insignificant piece of has-been rubbish out of the discussion, since it's not in the same vein as KoRn's older work:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f7/Paradigm-shift-e1374855234732.jpg


Hmmm... You know what this says to me!? 1994 is the beginning of the 2000's! It's so clear as that's when Buddha and Korn came out! Oh, how could I have not seen it before! The roots of 2011 were there all along! I bet The Early 90s Guy is gonna have to re-think his whole stance now. Ooooorr, he think of more excuses. We'll have to wait and see.


The only difference between 1989 and 1990-1991 is that the latter two years were already heading for 1999, whereas the spirit of 1978 was still relevant in 1989.  Although actually, I can't remember whether the spirit of '78 was finito by 1990 or if stores everywhere were totally flooded with Star Wars and Garfield merchandise during that time.


Remember, the 70's vibe of the 80's lasted through 1989 but was dead in 1990 as the clock hit midnight on New Years day.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/17/16 at 12:48 am

Hmmm... You know what this says to me!? 1994 is the beginning of the 2000's! It's so clear as that's when Buddha and Korn came out! Oh, how could I have not seen it before! The roots of 2011 were there all along! I bet The Early 90s Guy is gonna have to re-think his whole stance now. Ooooorr, he think of more excuses. We'll have to wait and see.

KoRn's self-titled debut and blink-182's Buddha may have been the first full-length releases by groups that would eventually lead us to 2011, but it wasn't until 1999 that KoRnmania and blinkmania truly took off.  Never mind the fact that "Blind" is a mid-90s (intended for the late 90s) metal classic and Life is Peachy went to #3 on the Billboard 200 in 1996, or that "Dammit" was such an airplay hit in early 1998, it was only by 1999 that everyone started having revelations about 2011 when they listened to those groups.

Remember, the 70's vibe of the 80's lasted through 1989 but was dead in 1990 as the clock hit midnight on New Years day.


Yes, however stuff that was popular in 1978 was still being sold in stores in 1990:

http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2edxa0m201qabnrh.jpg

http://www.allaboutprops.com/images/Telephones/Garfield%20Telephone_gal.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fe/9b/23/fe9b2376f8e7b306d3bc90edf1a3a749.jpg

Star Wars and Garfield may have been introduced in the 1970s, but they were intended for the 80s, and therefore brought us to 1990, by which point the spirit of '78 stopped being relevant and society began heading for 1999 as things introduced from 1978-1990 now existed from day 1 of a new decade before stuff intended for the 2000s began to overtake those things intended for 1990 or coexisted with them.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 2:58 am


KoRn's self-titled debut and blink-182's Buddha may have been the first full-length releases by groups that would eventually lead us to 2011, but it wasn't until 1999 that KoRnmania and blinkmania truly took off.  Never mind the fact that "Blind" is a mid-90s (intended for the late 90s) metal classic and Life is Peachy went to #3 on the Billboard 200 in 1996, or that "Dammit" was such an airplay hit in early 1998, it was only by 1999 that everyone started having revelations about 2011 when they listened to those groups.


Yep, this all checks out. Of course, those things don't matter. It's not like bands in 1998 already had the Y2K era sounds and styles, either. Big iconic tours from 1998 like the Pee Pee Poo Poo or Family Values aren't important. They just carried the spirit of 90 unlike their 1999-onward tours and albums. We were heading towards 2011 when Enema of the State and Issues came out. The Early 90s Guy, he knows his music and his scenes and I bet a man with his knowledge would sure agree.


Yes, however stuff that was popular in 1978 was still being sold in stores in 1990:

http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2edxa0m201qabnrh.jpg

http://www.allaboutprops.com/images/Telephones/Garfield%20Telephone_gal.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fe/9b/23/fe9b2376f8e7b306d3bc90edf1a3a749.jpg

Star Wars and Garfield may have been introduced in the 1970s, but they were intended for the 80s, and therefore brought us to 1990, by which point the spirit of '78 stopped being relevant and society began heading for 1999 as things introduced from 1978-1990 now existed from day 1 of a new decade before stuff intended for the 2000s began to overtake those things intended for 1990 or coexisted with them.


Yes, this is correct. Stuff that started in 1978 was intended for the 80's, which in themselves are only a transition to get to 1990 therefore there is no real 80's culture only culture that is intended to get us to 1990 which brought us things like "Best of the 80's" books which did not appear anywhere between 1978 and 1989. Transformers. They were not on shelves from January 1st, 1978 to December 31st, 1989 but they were on shelves from January 1st, 1990 to September 25th at 8:30:55 PM, 1999 (the cultural and historical beginning of the next century) before being replaced by Pokemon and Enema of the State, American Pie; incoming 2010's culture which will bring us to 2011. Some mistake 80's occurrences such as Reign in Blood or Peace Sells as 80's culture but they're wrong. The Clash of the Titans tour took place in 1990. Surprise, surprise. ;)

Everything after 1992 sucks. The spirit of 90 may have existed until September 25th, 8:30:55 PM (the historical and cultural start of the next century) but originality was lost in 1993. There have been no cultural changes ever since. The Early 90s Guy explains it better than anyone:

I don't know why everyone else in the world appears to like '93-'99 so much. Like 80s fan say, "The true 90s are overrated". 1993 WAS NOT EARLY 90S. YOU WEREN'T THERE. I CAN TELL BECAUSE YOU SAID IT LOOKS LIKE THE EARLY 90s TO YOU. 1993 IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE MID 90S.  1993 WAS THE YEAR OF GANGSTA RAP AND GRUNGE. I dislike that year will all of my hate. >:(

Pre '93
http://www.westwoodvalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Vanilla-Ice-To-The-Extreme.jpg


Post '93
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_y_tcBPfFUyE/TH-_SpnEURI/AAAAAAAAAeE/VC2kUXaJ0iY/s1600/61MBcUwrUfL._SL600_.jpg


I know what I'm talking about.


See? He knows what he's talking about. Of course, he is the Early 90s Guy after all. Why wouldn't he know what he's talking about?

Remember...

https://getbent57.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/1988leofront.jpg

TURTLES ARE BETTER!


1999 may be the historical beginnings of the next century but if you wanna lump 1993 to now into that era, you sure can!

I lump everything from 1993 to now as the start of the 21st Century.  8-P


Oh, and some solid proof that Millennials are useless.


I'm not the only one who has ever called Millennials a useless generation.

Have a look for yourself:

https://mobile.twitter.com/elizsimins/status/255313606311280640

http://m.topix.com/forum/city/washington-dc/T6GUHGRHVRM1TK825

http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/memo-to-millennials-you-suck

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/419761.page

http://www.d-rant.com/millennials-are-scum/


You still never answered my question. What have Millennials contributed to society so far? Do you know?


Also, being The Early 90s Guy (of course) he sees things through a different lens than the rest of us...

I'm sorry, I did not know you meant Disney flicks from the 90s decade only.

I don't see things that way. I would have said "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin" were all great Bush 1 Disney flicks. Being an early 90s fan, I don't see things as 80s or 90s like the rest of the world does. As you know, everyone is different.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 5:51 pm


Nope! They're 100% real! Check his post history, it's all there. The only reason I can't properly quote is because the topics are locked. Unlocked topics are fine.

This one's a gem. He always talks about the Turtles yet he says...

He's right, though. Looking at Kelly Kapowski was fun but I think he's lying. He seems like the type to much rather "gaze" at mutant trutles or giant transforming robots.

This one is also another gem:

If you're a Millennial, you're probably a pansy according to this Early 90s guy!

He loves to say that, too. "According to this Early 90s Guy everything after 1993 sucks!"

Case in point...
It's like being the "Early 90s Guy" makes you the definitive source on the early 90s. ;D I love it. Dude's f*ckin' hilarious! I could read these posts all day. I'm gonna look for the ones where he yells about Jesus and how there have been no cultural changes since 1993.


Woah. I'm warming up to Early90sGuy if he likes the 2010s. But as the 2010s guy, I'll fight anyone who doesn't agree that the 2010s didn't start somewhere in 2009  >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/17/16 at 6:34 pm


Woah. I'm warming up to Early90sGuy if he likes the 2010s. But as the 2010s guy, I'll fight anyone who doesn't agree that the 2010s didn't start somewhere in 2009  >:(


Nope! 2010s started in 2001.

Don't agree then come fight me, bro! 8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 6:40 pm


Nope! 2010s started in 2001.

Don't agree then come fight me, bro! 8)


2001?? I can see 2005 or 2006 but not 2001. In 2001 Friends was airing among other 2000s shows.

The 2000s started in 1994 with the release of Dookie and airing of Friends. The 2010s started in 2005 with the airing of The Office, a staple 2010s show.

edit: lol, this thread feels kind of mean ;D

I finished listening to Lit's A Place In the Sun. Great album. I'm listening to Dashboard Confessionals next.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/17/16 at 6:41 pm


2001?? I can see 2005 or 2006 but not 2001. In 2001 Friends was airing among other 2000s shows.

The 2000s started in 1994 with the release of Dookie and airing of Friends. The 2010s started in 2005 with the airing of The Office, a staple 2010s show.


It all makes sense now!  :o

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/17/16 at 7:12 pm


2001?? I can see 2005 or 2006 but not 2001. In 2001 Friends was airing among other 2000s shows.

The 2000s started in 1994 with the release of Dookie and airing of Friends. The 2010s started in 2005 with the airing of The Office, a staple 2010s show.

edit: lol, this thread feels kind of mean ;D

I finished listening to Lit's A Place In the Sun. Great album. I'm listening to Dashboard Confessionals next.


The 2000s basically started in 1997, since that was when South Park and King of the Hill premiered. Both of those shows were pretty influential during the 2000s, so yeah. As for the 2010s, they probably started in 2008. I don't really find The Office to be definitive during the 2010s, since it ended around 2013.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 9:59 pm


Woah. I'm warming up to Early90sGuy if he likes the 2010s. But as the 2010s guy, I'll fight anyone who doesn't agree that the 2010s didn't start somewhere in 2009  >:(


The Early 90s Guy is the funniest thing on the internet. Every time he posts, I always get in a good mood. I sincerely hope he's not a troll. Honestly, he better be real or I'm gonna be pretty pissed off.


Nope! 2010s started in 2001.

Don't agree then come fight me, bro! 8)


Does this imply that 2001 is not like 1998-2000?!?!?!? Do I have to yell at you in all caps and tell you how you're too young to comprehend the era like I do? >:(

2001?? I can see 2005 or 2006 but not 2001. In 2001 Friends was airing among other 2000s shows.

The 2000s started in 1994 with the release of Dookie and airing of Friends. The 2010s started in 2005 with the airing of The Office, a staple 2010s show.

edit: lol, this thread feels kind of mean ;D

I finished listening to Lit's A Place In the Sun. Great album. I'm listening to Dashboard Confessionals next.


Dude, early 00's Emo started in 1995 with Jawbreaker's Dear You. Seriously listen to it! The entire album sounds like something from 2001 or 2002!!! It's just like Bleed American! But yeah, the 2000's started in 1994 and the 2010's started in 2004 (because everything after 2003 sux :D)

This thread is a tribute to The Early 90s Guy. 

Dashboard Confessionals are pretty rad stuff. Once again, though, Dear You has an untitled acoustic track which sounds just like a Dashboard song from 2001 or 2002.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/17/16 at 10:16 pm


Woah. I'm warming up to Early90sGuy if he likes the 2010s. But as the 2010s guy, I'll fight anyone who doesn't agree that the 2010s didn't start somewhere in 2009  >:(


Well, if TheEarly90sGuy like the 2010s, then he could've gone off to another website with modern pop cultural references.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 10:25 pm


Well, if TheEarly90sGuy like the 2010s, then he could've gone off to another website with modern pop cultural references.


We can have nostalgia for last year. I'm nostalgic for early 2015 when I read the Martian. That's a good book.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 10:25 pm


Well, if TheEarly90sGuy like the 2010s, then he could've gone off to another website with modern pop cultural references.


How can he like the 2010's if he hates "pansy Millennials born after 1986"??

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/17/16 at 10:29 pm


How can he like the 2010's if he hates "pansy Millennials born after 1986"??


It was just a rumor that Slowpoke made. Of course, TheEarly90sGuy doesn't like the 2010s. He doesn't like anything after 1992 for some reason.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 10:31 pm


It was just a rumor that Slowpoke made. Of course, TheEarly90sGuy doesn't like the 2010s. He doesn't like anything after 1992 for some reason.


Of course. How could the Early 90s Guy like the 2010s? He is The Early 90s Guy after all. He only likes the late 80s and early 90s. He says all originality was lost in 1993 and there have been no cultural changes since despite the 90's beginning in 1990.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 10:34 pm


It was just a rumor that Slowpoke made. Of course, TheEarly90sGuy doesn't like the 2010s. He doesn't like anything after 1992 for some reason.


He said in that post Jordan quoted that he liked 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013? Well he said it was innovative and that "it was best part of the decade", not sure if he liked it. That makes him cool in my book.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/17/16 at 10:37 pm


Of course. How could the Early 90s Guy like the 2010s? He is The Early 90s Guy after all. He only likes the late 80s and early 90s. He says all originality was lost in 1993 and there have been no cultural changes since despite the 90's beginning in 1990.


Yet he still makes a big deal about 1999 being the year of POKéMANIA! THE DEBUT OF FAMILY GUY  AFTER THE SUPERBOWL!  THE BACKSTREET BOYS' MILLENNIUM!  STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE BEING THE #1 GROSSING FILM OF THE YEAR!, as well as 2011 being a huge deal because of FUNKO POP DOLLS!  ANGRY BIRDS MANIA!.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 10:39 pm


He said in that post Jordan quoted that he liked 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013? Well he said it was innovative and that "it was best part of the decade", not sure if he liked it. That makes him cool in my book.


This one?



Being The Early 90s Guy, I'll never love any year after 1992 the way I do '90-'92. I thought late '10 was the best part of the decade thus far. As 2010 was slowly morphing into 2011, some of the most memorable pop culture of the decade was churned out. Think about it, the fall of 2010 gave us "Instagram, Keep Calm and Carry On, Adventure Time, Lego Minifigures in toy stores, The Walking Dead, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and YOLO frozen yogurt". It was the most innovative part of the 2010s decade. 2011 will always be the true start of the 2010s decade, so 2010 was in the middle of that period starting in 2008 and the beginning of the 10s.

    The only year that competes with late 2010 is 2013. '13 starts off as one large continuation to 2012. The last episodes to the first and best season of Scandal were shown. America was still ranting and raving about "The Hobbit". They were doing the Gangham style dance to "Call Me Maybe" on the dance floor. Mothers everywhere were going, "How cute is that Honey Boo Boo"?  Sadly, George Zimmerman got away with murdering young Trayvon Martin. Most importantly, "Orange Is the New Black" premiered on Netflix. 2012 was indeed explosive with "50 Shades of Grey", but almost everyone I know is doing their crazy eyes impression right now.



Yet he still makes a big deal about 1999 being the year of POKéMANIA! THE DEBUT OF FAMILY GUY  AFTER THE SUPERBOWL!  THE BACKSTREET BOYS' MILLENNIUM!  STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE BEING THE #1 GROSSING FILM OF THE YEAR!, as well as 2011 being a huge deal because of FUNKO POP DOLLS!  ANGRY BIRDS MANIA!.


Hahaha! STARS WARS EPISODE I WAS NOT THE TOP GROSSING FILM IN 1998! THAT WAS 1999! I gotta find the post where he yells about Jesus.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 10:42 pm

Yeah that one 8)

He considers 2010 to be the best part of the decade, and 2010 is the 2000s to him, so that means it's better than 1999-2002. If even Early90sGuy likes 2010-13, that truly means it was the greatest era 8)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 10:44 pm


Yeah that one 8)

He considers 2010 to be the best part of the decade, and 2010 is the 2000s to him, so that means it's better than 1999-2002. If even Early90sGuy likes 2010-13, that truly means it was the greatest era 8)


Does this mean Early 90s guy wears slutty V-Necks with vicks, too?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 10:49 pm

This one's a gem:


The early 90s were TOO GREAT to be grouped with those bland Clinton years. Yes, they may be a part of the 90s decade, but George HW Bush was president. Those times were VERY different from '93 to '99. Yes, I do always bring up pop culture from the early 90s because the period is underrated. Sadly, those years don't get enough recognition from a good portion of people. I am an early 90s fan for life! Hypercolor was the greatest idea ever. I had so much fun touching my friends shirt to see my hand imprint in February of 1992. I'll never forget. I refuse to get over the early 90s because you told me so. Who made you the queen of this message board? Just because your name is Katana Queen doesn't mean you go bossing people around. You can simply ignore my messages if you can't stand them. I "rag on people's childhoods" because I was of age to see the real 90s for what they were. The last thing America needs is a generation with a very poor taste in pop culture. You seem to forget one day a millennial will be President. Also, I'll be seated in a nursing home next to a millennial.  I have cousins like everyone else, so yes, I was exposed to the toys and cartoons of the 1990s.

GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE, HONEY! The first amendment grants me the freedom to free speech. All of my talk about the early 90s is getting old TO YOU! Get over yourself, princess! The world doesn't revolve around you!


If they're so different, then why'd the 90's start in 1990?

He's so time specific, too.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 10:50 pm


Does this mean Early 90s guy wears slutty V-Necks with vicks, too?


He sounds like a cool dude. You guys are just h8as  8)


This one's a gem:

If they're so different, then why'd the 90's start in 1990?

He's so time specific, too.

Maybe something February related happened that day, like idk the Superbowl or Valentine's Day.

Benefit of the doubt man. Benefit of the doubt.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 10:52 pm


He sounds like a cool dude. You guys are just h8as  8)


I don't hate him. I think he's hilarious.


Maybe something February related happened that day, like idk the Superbowl or Valentine's Day.

Benefit of the doubt man. Benefit of the doubt.


Valentines day? Dude's more into his "slammin'" TMNT figures with the realistic skin that made him feel "sweet" than Kelly from Saved by the Bell. I don't want to know what his "valentines day" consists of.


I'll assume that by "whole decade", you meant 1993-2002.


Even he knows...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 10:57 pm


I don't hate him. I think he's hilarious.

Valentines day? Dude's more into his "slammin'" TMNT figures with the realistic skin that made him feel "sweet" than Kelly from Saved by the Bell. I don't want to know what his "valentines day" consists of.

Even he knows...


The important thing is he likes the early 10s at least. He's part of the cool kids skinny jeans club. You're not invited :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 11:07 pm


The important thing is he likes the early 10s at least. He's part of the cool kids skinny jeans club. You're not invited :P


I'm sure he's thrilled to be in a club full of post-1986 Millennials. ::)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 11:14 pm

Oh look!


The 2010s are a lot blander than the 2000s ever were. I noticed that also. In the 00s, at least you could mock Paris Hilton, solve the mysteries to ABC's Lost, look at people's Myspace updated pages and root for Harry, Hermione and Ron at the movies. I bet we'll look back and see the 2000s decade as the one that fits in most with the years of the 20th Century.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 11:16 pm


I'm sure he's thrilled to be in a club full of post-1986 Millennials. ::)


Hey we talk about early 90s stuff like Jurassic Park too. You just jelly (pardon my late 2000s slang).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 11:18 pm


Hey we talk about early 90s stuff like Jurassic Park too. You just jelly (pardon my late 2000s slang).


But he hates Jurassic Park! That movie came out in 1993, a year he dislikes with all of his hate! >:(

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/17/16 at 11:28 pm


Oh look!


https://media.giphy.com/media/6gLyE15StAs3C/giphy.gif

Lame! Back to the 2000s Nickelback fanclub with him  8-P


But he hates Jurassic Park! That movie came out in 1993, a year he dislikes with all of his hate! >:(


thatsthejoke :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/17/16 at 11:30 pm


https://media.giphy.com/media/6gLyE15StAs3C/giphy.gif

Lame! Back to the 2000s Nickelback fanclub with him  8-P


2000's being 1999 to 2011? ;)

2011 is when the blandness began.


thatsthejoke :P


I got it. :P

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/18/16 at 9:21 am


Yeah that one 8)

He considers 2010 to be the best part of the decade, and 2010 is the 2000s to him, so that means it's better than 1999-2002. If even Early90sGuy likes 2010-13, that truly means it was the greatest era 8)


Early90sGuy likes the early 2010s? Well then, I guess he's hiding a dirty little secret from us.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/18/16 at 10:47 am


Early90sGuy likes the early 2010s? Well then, I guess he's hiding a dirty little secret from us.


He thinks the 2010's are a lot blander than the 2000's.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/18/16 at 10:54 am


He thinks the 2010's are a lot blander than the 2000's.


K

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/18/16 at 11:10 pm


He thinks the 2010's are a lot blander than the 2000's.



It's the moment of truth time! Do you like the 2010s more or the 2000s?



I would have to go with the 2010s, because we are living in one of the most technologically progressive times in history.


He
has spoken. You lose. Cya l8r loser

http://www.dentonisd.org/cms/lib/tx21000245/centricity/Domain/3012/Dancing_L.gif

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/18/16 at 11:19 pm



He
has spoken. You lose. Cya l8r loser

http://www.dentonisd.org/cms/lib/tx21000245/centricity/Domain/3012/Dancing_L.gif


I noticed! >:(

Early 90s Guy probably means the 2003/2004-2009 part of the decade as 2000-2002 aren't 00's years.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/19/16 at 4:54 am

Having studied the The Neurotic Misadventures of TheEarly90sGuy, I'm gonna sum up all the decades as such:

The 1970s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0STL8NRVlQc

http://www.stardomeplanetarium.co.uk/images/apollo-16.jpg?764

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/Creedence_Clearwater_Revival_Chronicle.jpg

http://s.ecrater.com/stores/110247/53e5c94f12f61_110247b.jpg

The 1980s:

http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/staying-alive-1983/large_pZS3K6My4UDwVzwTkEpAo0JXjZt.jpg

http://lh5.ggpht.com/-3J8kd98REPY/UTPDlVlsefI/AAAAAAAAYQ0/iM69EURLOck/s9000/halloween-5-the-revenge-of-michael-myers-116190l.jpg

https://cdn.discogs.com/AOrB4H8CQviVDt760Ll7Lw_wpQs=/fit-in/600x594/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(96)/discogs-images/R-1903627-1455420605-5485.jpeg.jpg

https://catalogue.presto.com.au/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/Grease%202%20960x1440.jpg?itok=9yYh_u7o

The 1990s:

http://retro.recordsale.de/cdpix/t/the_real_milli_vanilli-too_late_(true_love)(hansa).jpg

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/filmguide/images/a/a0/Home_alone_three.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130816185321

http://www.nitrocats.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nextmutation-team.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41V3B5M0ZDL.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QN9MTF5YL.jpg

The 2000s:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/Unbreakable_cover.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/The_book_of_love.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61IRrinv9IL.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll206/V-F-H/boxart/ppg_10th.png

http://images.betanews.com/screenshots/1003279686-1.jpg

http://streamd.hitparade.ch/cdimages/vengaboys-forever_as_one_s_1.jpg

http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0000/499/MI0000499217.jpg?partner=allrovi.com

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/The_Simpsons_-_The_11th_Season.jpg

http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mkwPmJ5YeTg1TZPcn1UKB2w.jpg

The 2010s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xz6upJcC5c

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/The_Smurfs_2_poster.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVCzdpagXOQ

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Planes_FilmPoster.jpeg

Remember, it's always the first year that ultimately defines an entire decade.  I hope that helps! :)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Philip Eno on 02/19/16 at 4:57 am

^ The Abbey Road Album by The Beatles was released in September 1969.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: #Infinity on 02/19/16 at 4:58 am


^ The Abbey Road Album by The Beatles was released in September 1969.


It was issued on cassette, however, in 1972, and again in 1976.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/19/16 at 7:15 am


Having studied the The Neurotic Misadventures of TheEarly90sGuy, I'm gonna sum up all the decades as such:

The 1970s:


The 1990s:



The 2000s:



The 2010s:


Remember, it's always the first year that ultimately defines an entire decade.  I hope that helps! :)


Thank you for this comprehensive study on the cultural decades, Infinity. It's about time the people really took the time to learn about how these things work. I hate when people mistake 80's occurrences for the 80's as they are meant for 1990.

This is an alternative way to do this, too. As we both know, there have been absolutely no culture changes whatsoever since 1993. A PlayStation was in stores in 1995 and a PlayStation is in stores today. It's the same thing. We can use photos from 1993 to define the 2010's. It's just that simple!

Defining 2010's culture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/44_Bill_Clinton_3x4.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TCU1UlugWcw/TUoyVGMoW8I/AAAAAAAAAAM/6l0wh7W_n14/s1600/tagtea-whoomp.jpg

http://img.gamefaqs.net/box/5/0/9/21509_front.jpg

http://s7.computerhistory.org/is/image/CHM/102712896-03-01?$re-inline-artifact$

http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bowser.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/In_Utero_(Nirvana)_album_cover.jpg

http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0001/678/MI0001678723.jpg?partner=allrovi.com

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Philip Eno on 02/19/16 at 7:20 am


It was issued on cassette, however, in 1972, and again in 1976.
O0

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/19/16 at 8:00 am

Oh my god look at the huge differences between December 31, 1992 11:59 PM and January 1, 1993 at midnight. Everything changed the second that New Year's ball dropped in Time Square. As a result, everything then on became the things that define today. Look at how dramatic the change was between 1992 and 1993 even just by watching the New Year's Countdown. Suddenly everything turned from old school to new school and I'm so pissed about it!

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: JordanK1982 on 02/19/16 at 8:11 am

Simpsons couch gags were never the same after 1993...

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/19/16 at 8:51 am


Simpsons couch gags were never the same after 1993...


I think they were good until Season 25. However, the best couch gags came from the 90s seasons.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/19/16 at 9:20 am

Culinary meals never tasted the same after '93. After all, he is the world's greatest expert on the early 90's, so why wouldn't he not know how food tasted like before and after 1993?

Pre-1993: Meals tasted delicious.
Post-1993: Meals sucked.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/19/16 at 9:21 am


Culinary meals never tasted the same after '93. After all, he is the world's greatest expert on the early 90's, so why wouldn't he not know how food tasted like before and after 1993?

Pre-1993: Meals tasted delicious.
Post-1993: Meals sucked.


Was there a law that needed meals to be more healthy in '93?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/19/16 at 9:24 am


I think they were good until Season 25. However, the best couch gags came from the 90s seasons.


My favorite couch gag was the evolution couch gag as seen on "Homerazzi" (Season 18 Episode 16).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/19/16 at 9:29 am


Was there a law that needed meals to be more healthy in '93?


Not really, but there was the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994, which addressed concerns brought up by the 1993 SNDA study concerning levels of fat, sodium and carbohydrates in meals that the then-current school lunch program served to students. But yeah, you could say there was at least a major idea to make meals more healthy in 1993. "Got Milk" was even introduced in '93.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/19/16 at 9:55 am


Not really, but there was the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994, which addressed concerns brought up by the 1993 SNDA study concerning levels of fat, sodium and carbohydrates in meals that the then-current school lunch program served to students. But yeah, you could say there was at least a major idea to make meals more healthy in 1993. "Got Milk" was even introduced in '93.


So because of the HFHAA, school programs give students sh*tty food?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: The Burger King on 02/19/16 at 9:59 am


So because of the HFHAA, school programs give students sh*tty food?


Partially, I would say yes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/19/16 at 10:47 am


Partially, I would say yes.


Wow. I guess that sucks since I was born after 1993. But at least their food isn't inedible.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/19/16 at 11:16 am


Wow. I guess that sucks since I was born after 1993. But at least their food isn't inedible.


He was joking lol. It still makes a lot of sense though, I do like terrible food.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/19/16 at 12:26 pm

This has nothing to do with the generations, or maybe it does. :( I notice that kids today go home from school later in the afternoon. Why is that? When I was in school we stayed until 2:15 pm. I know times have changed, but is there a specific reason?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/19/16 at 12:33 pm


This has nothing to do with the generations, or maybe it does. :( I notice that kids today go home from school later in the afternoon. Why is that? When I was in school we stayed until 2:15 pm. I know times have changed, but is there a specific reason?


Hmm, I think I used to get off at 3:00 pm. When did yours start? Mine used to start at 8:40 am I think, and every other Tuesday we had a short day, so it would start at 10:00 am. Perfect for catching up on sleep.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/19/16 at 12:40 pm


This has nothing to do with the generations, or maybe it does. :( I notice that kids today go home from school later in the afternoon. Why is that? When I was in school we stayed until 2:15 pm. I know times have changed, but is there a specific reason?


Here in Georgia, when I was in elementary school. You had to be in the building by 8:00am or you were tardy (late slip). In order from Kindergarten to 5th graders, everybody were dismissed out of the building from 2:30pm-2:45pm. Middle school and high school had to be in their classrooms by 8:20am or you were late, and were all dismissed from the building at 3:30pm.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/19/16 at 12:47 pm


Here in Georgia, when I was in elementary school. You had to be in the building by 8:00am or you were tardy (late slip). In order from Kindergarten to 5th graders, everybody were dismissed out of the building from 2:30pm-2:45pm. Middle school and high school had to be in their classrooms by 8:20am or you were late, and were all dismissed from the building at 3:30pm.


8:20 to 3:30?? Wow that is oppressively long. And you had homework on top of that?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: violet_shy on 02/19/16 at 12:49 pm


Here in Georgia, when I was in elementary school. You had to be in the building by 8:00am or you were tardy (late slip). In order from Kindergarten to 5th graders, everybody were dismissed out of the building from 2:30pm-2:45pm. Middle school and high school had to be in their classrooms by 8:20am or you were late, and were all dismissed from the building at 3:30pm.



Hmm, I think I used to get off at 3:00 pm. When did yours start? Mine used to start at 8:40 am I think, and every other Tuesday we had a short day, so it would start at 10:00 am. Perfect for catching up on sleep.



Well, in grade school we would begin at 8:00 in the morning, and leave to go home at 2:15 in the afternoon.

My nephews are 11 and 8 years old. They go home from school at 3:30-4:00 in the afternoon.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/19/16 at 12:58 pm


8:20 to 3:30?? Wow that is oppressively long. And you had homework on top of that?


Yep, and not just homework either, but extracurricular activities, like clubs or sports. I ran cross country all 4 years while I had many other friends who played football, basketball, baseball, or tennis, so many of us wouldn't get home until around 6pm-8pm in the evening.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001 on 02/19/16 at 1:04 pm


Yep, and not just homework either, but extracurricular activities, like clubs or sports. I ran cross country all 4 years while I had many other friends who played football, basketball, baseball, or tennis, so many of us wouldn't get home until around 6pm-8pm in the evening.


Get back home at 8 and still have to do homework?  :o Did the kids in your school have jobs? For some reason I thought the American school system would be easier.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/19/16 at 1:19 pm


Get back home at 8 and still have to do homework?  :o Did the kids in your school have jobs? For some reason I thought the American school system would be easier.


Well since Cross Country is during the Fall each year and my practice ended at 5:30pm, I was able to get home at 6pm during the Fall, and 4pm during the Spring. However, when it came to football or basketball players their practices lasted longer so they wouldn't be home until 7pm or 8pm, and you'd think homework at night is tough. I'm taking evening classes this semester in college, all of those last from 5:30 or 6pm to 8pm. So I have to drive back home 45 minutes to an hour on the dark road each night (Mon-Thur), and it's more of a pain in the ass when it's raining heavy at night.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/19/16 at 1:26 pm



Well, in grade school we would begin at 8:00 in the morning, and leave to go home at 2:15 in the afternoon.

My nephews are 11 and 8 years old. They go home from school at 3:30-4:00 in the afternoon.

I often began my school days, particularly in elementary school, sometime between 8 and 8:30, and would be out by about 2:30.
In 3rd grade, I went to a school that was in session from 8:30 to 2:30, and on some days I wouldn't go home until at least 3:30 or 4; they had an "extended day care" system, which was good.

In middle school, the day would run from 8 to 3, with a "passing bell" ringing at 7:55; this would give kids time to get to their homerooms and get situated. Thursdays would be "shortened" days, lasting from 8 to 2; I'm not sure why, but I'm sure there was some explanation for that.

In high school, we began at 7:45 and ended at 2:25.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/19/16 at 1:53 pm


8:20 to 3:30?? Wow that is oppressively long. And you had homework on top of that?


Well, it's basically school. My school surprisingly gets out at 2:18 pm. Sure, it seems unusual but it was their dismissal time.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/19/16 at 3:51 pm


Well, it's basically school. My school surprisingly gets out at 2:18 pm. Sure, it seems unusual but it was their dismissal time.

On a similar note, when I was in middle school, there was a "minimum day" bell schedule that would end the school day at 12:34, so that each class period would be exactly 34 minutes long (i.e., no variations on length of period).

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Baltimoreian on 02/19/16 at 4:33 pm


This has nothing to do with the generations, or maybe it does. :( I notice that kids today go home from school later in the afternoon. Why is that? When I was in school we stayed until 2:15 pm. I know times have changed, but is there a specific reason?


Well, not every school doesn't have the same 8:00 am to 2:15 pm schedule. So, why does this have to do with generations, if yet all schools from all generations have different schedules?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/19/16 at 11:33 pm


Well, not every school doesn't have the same 8:00 am to 2:15 pm schedule. So, why does this have to do with generations, if yet all schools from all generations have different schedules?

Perhaps the standard school hours have changed over the years?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/20/16 at 12:45 am


This has nothing to do with the generations, or maybe it does. :( I notice that kids today go home from school later in the afternoon. Why is that? When I was in school we stayed until 2:15 pm. I know times have changed, but is there a specific reason?


I didn't even know things changed. When I was in school we stayed until 2:30pm. But on Wednsdays we'd stay and leave at 1:30pm. Wednsdays were the days where we'd leave earlier. I wonder what it's like nowadays.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/20/16 at 7:50 am


I didn't even know things changed. When I was in school we stayed until 2:30pm. But on Wednsdays we'd stay and leave at 1:30pm. Wednsdays were the days where we'd leave earlier. I wonder what it's like nowadays.


When I was in school, the day started out early and ended at around 230-3pm, that was 25 years ago.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/20/16 at 2:52 pm


When I was in school, the day started out early and ended at around 230-3pm, that was 25 years ago.

Only my junior high days ended at 3pm, as I mentioned in my earlier post. In elementary school, the standard dismissal time was approximately 2:30, give or take a few minutes.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Toon on 02/21/16 at 2:45 pm


When I was in school, the day started out early and ended at around 2:30-3pm, that was 25 years ago.


I don't think my school ever ended at 3pm. Although in Middle School I do remember it ending at 4PM. Boy was I devestated to realize that by the time I'd get out of Middle School most of the afternoon would've been gone.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Howard on 02/21/16 at 3:10 pm


I don't think my school ever ended at 3pm. Although in Middle School I do remember it ending at 4PM. Boy was I devestated to realize that by the time I'd get out of Middle School most of the afternoon would've been gone.


Well Toon, that was my school time it ended between 245-3pm, I'd catch the bus to go home afterwards right across the street.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/21/16 at 4:43 pm


I don't think my school ever ended at 3pm. Although in Middle School I do remember it ending at 4PM. Boy was I devestated to realize that by the time I'd get out of Middle School most of the afternoon would've been gone.

4pm?!! Wow! :o I can't imagine any school hours going past 3. (Unless it's college, which has classes at all hours of the day.)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/23/16 at 6:27 pm

Damn, some of you got out of at 3 or 3:30pm? That's the latest I've seen except for college. For me, elementary began at 7:50am (basically 8am) and ended at 2:15pm. MS and HS began at 7:30am and finished at 2:10 and 2:14 respectively. Oh and I checked the sites of my old schools and they changed the times a little to get out. 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/23/16 at 6:33 pm

Hey You guys should check some of these old articles and studies regarding this generation. They pretty much cover everything.

http://theechoboom.com/2010/09/dateage-range-of-baby-boomers-generation-x-and-generation-y/

http://theechoboom.com/2010/09/the-echo-boom-statistics/

https://oied.ncsu.edu/diversity/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Managing-Across-Generations.pdf

http://www.go2hr.ca/articles/understanding-echo-boom-generation

https://certi.mst.edu/media/administrative/certi/documents/Article-Millennial-Behaviors.pdf

http://www.esds1.pt/site/images/stories/isacosta/secondary_pages/10%C2%BA_block1/Generations%20Chart.pdf

http://www.meaningfulcareers.com/defining-a-generation/

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2004/06/art2full.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/web/98039.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/12/us/a-generation-s-heritage-after-the-boom-a-boomlet.html?pagewanted=all

http://articles.philly.com/1998-03-08/news/25743950_1_echo-boomers-generation-baby-boom

http://nursing.advanceweb.com/Article/move-over-gen-X---here-comes-gen-Y.aspx

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/facing-facts/here-comes-millennial-generation

http://www.youthpastor.com/lessons/index.cfm/Article-Generations_From_Silent_through_Boomer_and_X_to_Millenial_124.htm#.Vszb-PkrK70

http://www.thelearningcafe.net/downloads/InstantExpert-Millennials.pdf

http://www.newsweek.com/now-its-time-generation-next-162866

http://www.fortlauderdale.gov/Home/S...ument?id=11205

http://www.people-press.org/2007/01/09/a-portrait-of-generation-next/

http://www.mcosa.net/SPF-SIG%20TRAIN...eet_080606.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M...ials/Archive_2

http://www.fdu.edu/newspubs/magazine/05ws/generations.htm

http://ndn.org/paper/2007/progressive-politics-millennial-generation

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.gfoa-mo...ials_2-4-1.pdf

http://www.newsweek.com/now-its-time...on-next-162866

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Zelek2 on 02/26/16 at 12:52 pm

This is unrelated, but anyone notice the word "Millennial" has kind of gotten screwed up definition-wise? Like, it's been reduced to a very loosely-defined slang term.

On the forums I go to, they usually have threads beginning with "Millennials will never know ": "Millennials will never know Ask Jeeves", "Millennials will never know arcades", "Millennials will never know Misty from Pokemon", etc.

Apparently, 20-somethings often say they're "Gen Y, not Millennials", and also think "Millennial" means "born in 2000+ (aka the millennium)" because it's simpler and "makes more sense". Maybe it does?

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: ocarinafan96 on 02/26/16 at 5:24 pm


This is unrelated, but anyone notice the word "Millennial" has kind of gotten screwed up definition-wise? Like, it's been reduced to a very loosely-defined slang term.

On the forums I go to, they usually have threads beginning with "Millennials will never know ": "Millennials will never know Ask Jeeves", "Millennials will never know arcades", "Millennials will never know Misty from Pokemon", etc.

Apparently, 20-somethings often say they're "Gen Y, not Millennials", and also think "Millennial" means "born in 2000+ (aka the millennium)" because it's simpler and "makes more sense". Maybe it does?


That is a very good point, hence the confusion. However I have met plenty of 20 somethings, ironically mostly late 20 somethings (so mid-late 80's babies), who consider themselves 'Millennials'. Very rarely these days do I hear 'Generation Y' regardless if its on the internet or real life

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/26/16 at 5:30 pm


Damn, some of you got out of at 3 or 3:30pm? That's the latest I've seen except for college. For me, elementary began at 7:50am (basically 8am) and ended at 2:15pm. MS and HS began at 7:30am and finished at 2:10 and 2:14 respectively. Oh and I checked the sites of my old schools and they changed the times a little to get out.

Yep, some of my schools have changed their bell schedules over the years as well; I've checked some of their websites just for curiosity's sake. Sometimes they'll have it end at an oddball time (and by that, I mean that the minutes are NOT divisible by 5) which can be kinda screwy. I once knew someone who went to a school that ended at 2:59 (not 3:00), no joke.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mqg96 on 02/26/16 at 5:50 pm


Yep, some of my schools have changed their bell schedules over the years as well; I've checked some of their websites just for curiosity's sake. Sometimes they'll have it end at an oddball time (and by that, I mean that the minutes are NOT divisible by 5) which can be kinda screwy. I once knew someone who went to a school that ended at 2:59 (not 3:00), no joke.


Let me explain how my school schedule was for my high school, I'll do the best I can explaining this since I'm 2 years removed from high school. 

Throughout my 4 years of high school we did block scheduling. Everybody had 4 classes a day throughout the semester. You'd get one set of 4 classes for Fall semester and the other set of 4 for Spring semester. The average time a class lasted was an hour and 30 min.

1st Block: 8:30am - 10:05am

2nd Block: 10:15am - 11:45am

3rd Block: 11:55am - 1:50pm

4th Block: 2:00pm - 3:30pm


So basically throughout the 7 & early 8am hour buses would be picking up kids from home and dropping them off to school. If you're a car rider or drive yourself then it's obviously your own time. Before the 1st bell at 8:20am everybody had wait in the courtyard, cafeteria, or gym. The freshmen or 9th graders had a separate building and cafeteria to wait in though. So once the 1st bell rings at 8:20am everybody gets settled in class. Then the 2nd bell rings at 8:30am which is the tardy bell.

1st block, 2nd block, and 4th block remains the way it is. School starts at 8:30pm while it ends at 3:30pm. However, as you can see you're guessing that lunches occur throughout 3rd block, which is correct. Everybody either had 1st lunch, 2nd lunch, 3rd lunch, or 4th lunch. Again, the freshmen had their own cafeteria in their own building. While the sophomores-seniors sat in the main cafeteria in the main high school building, the senior cafe for seniors next to the main cafeteria was optional. Everybody either had 1st lunch (11:45am-12:15pm), 2nd lunch (12:20pm-12:45pm), 3rd lunch (12:50pm-1:15pm), or 4th lunch (1:20pm-1:50pm). Throughout my freshman and sophomore years of high school, the lunch you had depended on which hallway you were on, and throughout my junior and senior years of high school it changed and it was based off the subject you had.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: Eazy-EMAN1995 on 02/26/16 at 11:42 pm


Preschool, it was 8:30-12:00 Pre K, it was 8:30-2:00.From kindergarten to 8th grade I entered school at 8:30 and left at 3:00!  ::) 

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: mxcrashxm on 02/27/16 at 12:11 am


This is unrelated, but anyone notice the word "Millennial" has kind of gotten screwed up definition-wise? Like, it's been reduced to a very loosely-defined slang term.

On the forums I go to, they usually have threads beginning with "Millennials will never know ": "Millennials will never know Ask Jeeves", "Millennials will never know arcades", "Millennials will never know Misty from Pokemon", etc.

Apparently, 20-somethings often say they're "Gen Y, not Millennials", and also think "Millennial" means "born in 2000+ (aka the millennium)" because it's simpler and "makes more sense". Maybe it does?


What they don't understand is that both names are mean the same generation; however, those aren't the only two. There are Echo Boomers, Digital Natives/Pioneers and Generation 2000/Y2K (one of the old names as well).

As for the 2000+ generation, they're considered the Plurals, Founders, and/or Homeland.


Let me explain how my school schedule was for my high school, I'll do the best I can explaining this since I'm 2 years removed from high school. 

Throughout my 4 years of high school we did block scheduling. Everybody had 4 classes a day throughout the semester. You'd get one set of 4 classes for Fall semester and the other set of 4 for Spring semester. The average time a class lasted was an hour and 30 min.

1st Block: 8:30am - 10:05am

2nd Block: 10:15am - 11:45am

3rd Block: 11:55am - 1:50pm

4th Block: 2:00pm - 3:30pm


So basically throughout the 7 & early 8am hour buses would be picking up kids from home and dropping them off to school. If you're a car rider or drive yourself then it's obviously your own time. Before the 1st bell at 8:20am everybody had wait in the courtyard, cafeteria, or gym. The freshmen or 9th graders had a separate building and cafeteria to wait in though. So once the 1st bell rings at 8:20am everybody gets settled in class. Then the 2nd bell rings at 8:30am which is the tardy bell.

1st block, 2nd block, and 4th block remains the way it is. School starts at 8:30pm while it ends at 3:30pm. However, as you can see you're guessing that lunches occur throughout 3rd block, which is correct. Everybody either had 1st lunch, 2nd lunch, 3rd lunch, or 4th lunch. Again, the freshmen had their own cafeteria in their own building. While the sophomores-seniors sat in the main cafeteria in the main high school building, the senior cafe for seniors next to the main cafeteria was optional. Everybody either had 1st lunch (11:45am-12:15pm), 2nd lunch (12:20pm-12:45pm), 3rd lunch (12:50pm-1:15pm), or 4th lunch (1:20pm-1:50pm). Throughout my freshman and sophomore years of high school, the lunch you had depended on which hallway you were on, and throughout my junior and senior years of high school it changed and it was based off the subject you had.


I had a block schedule as well in MS. Here's what the times were like:

Block 1: 7:30 to 8:58

Block 2: 9:03 to 10:31

Lunch: 10:36 to 11:01

Block 3: 11:06 to 12:38

Block 4: 12:43 to 2:10


Yep, some of my schools have changed their bell schedules over the years as well; I've checked some of their websites just for curiosity's sake. Sometimes they'll have it end at an oddball time (and by that, I mean that the minutes are NOT divisible by 5) which can be kinda screwy. I once knew someone who went to a school that ended at 2:59 (not 3:00), no joke.
It can be. During at my HS, all the periods were not divisible by 5 at all (all ended with an even number)

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: nally on 02/28/16 at 5:45 pm


I had a block schedule as well in MS. Here's what the times were like:

Block 1: 7:30 to 8:58

Block 2: 9:03 to 10:31

Lunch: 10:36 to 11:01

Block 3: 11:06 to 12:38

Block 4: 12:43 to 2:10

I wonder if they do that in parts of the U.S. other than California.



It can be. During at my HS, all the periods were not divisible by 5 at all (all ended with an even number)

Same with me. On a regular day, all six periods were each 53 minutes long, with a 6-minute "passing" in between (that is, time to get from one class to another), a 12-minute homeroom period, and a half-hour lunch period.

Subject: Re: A new way of defining generations

Written By: 2001