Generation Z = / = Homelander?

[Ghost]

(09-23-2019, 03:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 03:41 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 11:57 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(08-06-2019, 10:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-05-2019, 07:47 PM)Ghost Wrote: When the term "Gen Z" is used, the 1981-1996 and 1982-2000 definitions are always the most common definitions for Millennials, even though most will probably agree that 1981 is an X year (I'm pretty sure everyone on here, myself included, thinks that 1981 is a Gen X birthyear).

Now regarding the Gen Z name - the only reason why it is named that is because Gen Xers are called Gen X and Millennials were at one point called Gen Y. It'll probably fade away overtime, but I don't doubt that it'll still start in either 1997 or 2000.

The latest birthyear I have seen lumped as being a "Millennial" though is 2006, which might surprise you.

I regard 1981 as a Gen X year, but it's on the cusp; I do accept the idea of cusps; it's just common sense. Nothing is so strictly bordered in the living world.

The most-common definitions and dating of the last millennial year are given by Pew Research, which is not a study of generational traits, but only demographics. It's like saying Boomers began in 1946 because that's when the baby boom started.

Gen Z will eventually be regarded as starting in 2003, at least among those who study generations and not demographics. And Gen Z will go all the way to 2024, because the 1T is not going to start until 2028 or 2029. Mr. Howe still says Gen Z starts in 2004, and we here should use that date or close to it, and not 1997 or 2000.

Gen Z is the name that has caught on so far. But if there's another name that comes along that describes them, and it catches on, the name could change. There's no such name yet, although people on T4T forums have speculated about it and offered names. That's always fun to do, but it doesn't mean that what we say here will catch on in the media zeitgeist. Mr. Howe adopted a name that someone here suggested, years ago now (Homelanders), but that name has not caught on because it doesn't fit. Since letters are used now for generations, as I suggested in my 1997 book, I suspect every generation will have a letter from now on, even if that's not the primary name. Not because I said so though, of course

The next prophets, yet to be born, are already being called Generation Alpha, or the Alpha Wave Generation. I think that's a cool name.

1981 is late X. I don't accept the idea of cusps because I'm born outside the XY cusp yet have done many of the things in childhood and teens that pure Millennials supposedly have not done. Since it says I haven't done these things because I was born outside of the range it means the cusp is garbage. If I have experienced these things that "core Millennials" supposedly haven't then what makes me different from this supposed cusp range? I read an article on the cusp and experienced those very same things. This means the category is arbitrary and artificial.

I have a feeling that the reason why 1981 borns are occasionally called Millennials is because they apply to the "not at school when the Challenger exploded but were at school when Columbine happened" rule.

Despite applying to the rule, I still believe that they're late Gen X overall and have more in common with people born in 1976 than people born in 1986.
*1981 borns may still remember the Challenger explosion whereas 1986 borns (almost all of them) were born after it happened.
*1981 borns spent most of their elementary school years before the Berlin Wall fell.
*1981 borns were probably too old for Nicktoons despite still being in elementary school when they came out.
*1981 borns were already in high school when Windows 95 came out, a release that changed technology forever.
*1981 borns might have been part of the grunge subculture, which lasted from around 1990/1991 to 1995/early 1996 and peaked in around 1993/1994. Using this reason will break the 18-year generation theory for sure though (because on a similar note, you could argue about 2002 borns being part of the hipster subculture, which lasted from around 2011/2012 to 2016/early 2017 and without a doubt peaked in 2015). This is where the 84-year saeculums and 21-year generations come to play.
*Most importantly to why they are still Gen X, they graduated high school before Y2K, unless they had a late birthday.
*Not necessarily important, but the "stereotypical Millennial" celebrities weren't really born until 1986 because that's when Amanda Bynes, the Olsen twins, and Lindsay Lohan were born. Most people will consider 1981 Gen X but everyone will consider 1986 Millennial.

I do agree as well, and expect that one reason 1981 cohorts are grouped with millennials, at least in the media, is because it's easier just to round off their dates to "born in the 1980s and 1990s."

I think that it could also be because of the "not at school during the Challenger explosion but at school during the Columbine shooting" rule, as 1981 borns were the first to start elementary school after the Challenger explosion and the first to graduate high school after the Columbine shooting.

I'm pretty sure that the reason I gave is the only reason why they're seen as Millennials.

[Bill the Piper]

(09-20-2019, 03:20 PM)Ghost Wrote: Some say that Generation X will eventually be 1965-1985 and that Generation Y/Millennials will eventually be 1986-2006, but what does a 33-year old guy with a job, a house, and kids have in common with someone who just became a teenager today?

Today. But in 2049, won't the 43-year-old and the 63-year-old view themselves as members of the same generation? Deciding what generation a kid is when e is 13 is way too early. Generation is about your experiences, and a 13-year-old has few.

[David Horn]

(09-28-2019, 02:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(09-20-2019, 03:20 PM)Ghost Wrote: Some say that Generation X will eventually be 1965-1985 and that Generation Y/Millennials will eventually be 1986-2006, but what does a 33-year old guy with a job, a house, and kids have in common with someone who just became a teenager today?

Today. But in 2049, won't the 43-year-old and the 63-year-old view themselves as members of the same generation? Deciding what generation a kid is when e is 13 is way too early. Generation is about your experiences, and a 13-year-old has few.

That's an excellent point, and the sharing of experience is what knits cohorts into a generation.  Let's examine the '65-'85 cohorts, who are already old enough to meet your criterion.  None of those cohorts emerged into a wide-open economy that welcomed them eagerly -- even though they are cohorts with fewer members than the Boomers who preceded them.  So arguing that they are a generation is reasonable, though a bit controversial.  Mine was a quick swipe at commonality.  Doing a deeper dive might identify rifts that are significant or further shared experiences that enhance the bond they share.  One pivot point: technology.  The PC didn't really arrive until ~1982, and didn't really have an impact until the mid to late '80s.  The older cohorts are, to this day, less tech savvy overall, and less connected to tech of all kinds than the more junior members who had this tech particular from an early age or birth.

[AspieMillennial]

(09-28-2019, 02:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(09-20-2019, 03:20 PM)Ghost Wrote: Some say that Generation X will eventually be 1965-1985 and that Generation Y/Millennials will eventually be 1986-2006, but what does a 33-year old guy with a job, a house, and kids have in common with someone who just became a teenager today?

Today. But in 2049, won't the 43-year-old and the 63-year-old view themselves as members of the same generation? Deciding what generation a kid is when e is 13 is way too early. Generation is about your experiences, and a 13-year-old has few.

If generation is about experiences then the idea of generation is flawed because logically someone born in 1965 would have more in common with someone born in 1964 than with someone born in 1985 despite being separate generations by this definition used.

[Hintergrund]

Four generations have been shaped by their experiences re: big wars:
* Lost: WW1
* G. I.s: WW2
* Silents: Korean War (more though by the fact that they never were shaped by either WW2 or Vietnam)
* Boomers: Vietnam War

Also, I share S&H's view that the cohorts of 1961-64 are X-ers, not Boomers.

[Warren Dew]

So were X shaped by the end of the Cold War? Or don't they think they were involved in any major wars?

[Kinser79]

(09-28-2019, 09:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-28-2019, 02:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(09-20-2019, 03:20 PM)Ghost Wrote: Some say that Generation X will eventually be 1965-1985 and that Generation Y/Millennials will eventually be 1986-2006, but what does a 33-year old guy with a job, a house, and kids have in common with someone who just became a teenager today?

Today. But in 2049, won't the 43-year-old and the 63-year-old view themselves as members of the same generation? Deciding what generation a kid is when e is 13 is way too early. Generation is about your experiences, and a 13-year-old has few.

That's an excellent point, and the sharing of experience is what knits cohorts into a generation.  Let's examine the '65-'85 cohorts, who are already old enough to meet your criterion.  None of those cohorts emerged into a wide-open economy that welcomed them eagerly -- even though they are cohorts with fewer members than the Boomers who preceded them.  So arguing that they are a generation is reasonable, though a bit controversial.  Mine was a quick swipe at commonality.  Doing a deeper dive might identify rifts that are significant or further shared experiences that enhance the bond they share.  One pivot point: technology.  The PC didn't really arrive until ~1982, and didn't really have an impact until the mid to late '80s.  The older cohorts are, to this day, less tech savvy overall, and less connected to tech of all kinds than the more junior members who had this tech particular from an early age or birth.

Indeed. This is coming from an Xer who just recently got a smart phone (and I still don't quite know how to use it).  I only got it because my flip phone died on me.

(11-03-2019, 12:49 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: Four generations have been shaped by their experiences re: big wars:
* Lost: WW1
* G. I.s: WW2
* Silents: Korean War (more though by the fact that they never were shaped by either WW2 or Vietnam)
* Boomers: Vietnam War

Also, I share S&H's view that the cohorts of 1961-64 are X-ers, not Boomers.

(11-03-2019, 09:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: So were X shaped by the end of the Cold War?  Or don't they think they were involved in any major wars?

As an Xer and some would argue a near Core Xer if one uses 85 as their cut off (I don't know why, 82 seems about right for me for the last year of Xers--and I'm not going to argue with Aspie here on Cusps because well he's being an Aspie).  We were largely shaped by the end of the Cold War.  The fall of the Berlin Wall was a major event, and not just in Europe.  Also the dissolution of the USSR was a major event.  To a lesser extent the War on Terror has been influential but more as participants than spectators.

Also I once told someone that isn't involved at all with T4T theory about what defines the living generations:

GIs (that still exist):  No memories of the 19th century, probably remember the Crash of 1929.  Almost all men fought in or were in war production during WW2.

Silents:  No memories of the 1920s, or very dim and few extremely childish memories, remember VJ day.

Boomers:  No memories of VJ Day.  Remember the Kennedy Assassination.

Xers:  Don't remember Kennedy, Witnessed the Challenger blow up.  As I did, personally, in Florida, while at school.  Didn't live very far from the Space Coast at the time.

Millenials:  Don't remember Challenger, do remember Iraq War II and Bush's "Mission Accomplished" fiasco.  Also Katrina.  As people on this forum know I'm big on Katrina being a turning changer as opposed to 9-11 or the 09 Wall Street Meltdown.  But that could be regional in nature.

Zed (aka Homlanders):  Don't remember 9-11, or Katrina, or the 09 Wall Street Meltdown.  I'd say the oldest are in the 15-16 year old range excluding cusps.

That said nailing down exact dates for living generations is more difficult than it is for past generations--because they are still alive.

[Warren Dew]

(11-04-2019, 06:23 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Indeed. This is coming from an Xer who just recently got a smart phone (and I still don't quite know how to use it).  I only got it because my flip phone died on me.

Same here, but I'm really glad I got it.  It has a built in alarm clock!  Also if you remember to turn on low power mode after charging it, the charge lasts for a week, and there don't seem to be any negative effects.

Quote:

(11-03-2019, 09:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: So were X shaped by the end of the Cold War?  Or don't they think they were involved in any major wars?

As an Xer and some would argue a near Core Xer if one uses 85 as their cut off (I don't know why, 82 seems about right for me for the last year of Xers--and I'm not going to argue with Aspie here on Cusps because well he's being an Aspie).  We were largely shaped by the end of the Cold War.  The fall of the Berlin Wall was a major event, and not just in Europe.  Also the dissolution of the USSR was a major event. 

So do us boomers who fought in the Cold War get any credit, the way GI do from Silents?  Or was the end of the Cold War just a random event that was nice?

Quote:Boomers:  No memories of VJ Day.  Remember the Kennedy Assassination.

As a 1960 boomer I don't remember the Kennedy assassination, though I was overseas at the time.  I remember Katrina even though I'm from Boston - it was a big storm even up here - but not so much I'd consider it a good turning marker.

Quote:I'd say the oldest are in the 15-16 year old range excluding cusps.

I'm not even sure my 11 year old isn't a Millenial.  Depends on when the war comes.

Oh, and nice to see you again!

[AspieMillennial]

(09-28-2019, 09:26 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-28-2019, 02:25 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(09-20-2019, 03:20 PM)Ghost Wrote: Some say that Generation X will eventually be 1965-1985 and that Generation Y/Millennials will eventually be 1986-2006, but what does a 33-year old guy with a job, a house, and kids have in common with someone who just became a teenager today?

Today. But in 2049, won't the 43-year-old and the 63-year-old view themselves as members of the same generation? Deciding what generation a kid is when e is 13 is way too early. Generation is about your experiences, and a 13-year-old has few.

That's an excellent point, and the sharing of experience is what knits cohorts into a generation.  Let's examine the '65-'85 cohorts, who are already old enough to meet your criterion.  None of those cohorts emerged into a wide-open economy that welcomed them eagerly -- even though they are cohorts with fewer members than the Boomers who preceded them.  So arguing that they are a generation is reasonable, though a bit controversial.  Mine was a quick swipe at commonality.  Doing a deeper dive might identify rifts that are significant or further shared experiences that enhance the bond they share.  One pivot point: technology.  The PC didn't really arrive until ~1982, and didn't really have an impact until the mid to late '80s.  The older cohorts are, to this day, less tech savvy overall, and less connected to tech of all kinds than the more junior members who had this tech particular from an early age or birth.

The 80s and 90s bar the very early 90s recession had a very booming economy. It was much easier to get hired in 1995 than to get hired in 2015. I would also argue that the 1965 cohort would remember a lot more about the awakening time period than the 1985 birth. The 1965 birth has a lot more in common with the 1964 birth than to the 1985 birth.

[Kinser79]

(11-04-2019, 11:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-04-2019, 06:23 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Indeed. This is coming from an Xer who just recently got a smart phone (and I still don't quite know how to use it).  I only got it because my flip phone died on me.

Same here, but I'm really glad I got it.  It has a built in alarm clock!  Also if you remember to turn on low power mode after charging it, the charge lasts for a week, and there don't seem to be any negative effects.

I rather like it. I tend to use it as a mp3 player more than anything else though. Having trashy European Techno on hand is nice for pushing through paperwork and doing the books. I'll have to check out low power settings though.

Quote:

(11-03-2019, 09:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: So were X shaped by the end of the Cold War?  Or don't they think they were involved in any major wars?

As an Xer and some would argue a near Core Xer if one uses 85 as their cut off (I don't know why, 82 seems about right for me for the last year of Xers--and I'm not going to argue with Aspie here on Cusps because well he's being an Aspie).  We were largely shaped by the end of the Cold War.  The fall of the Berlin Wall was a major event, and not just in Europe.  Also the dissolution of the USSR was a major event. 

So do us boomers who fought in the Cold War get any credit, the way GI do from Silents?  Or was the end of the Cold War just a random event that was nice?[/quote]

From Xers? No. I won't speak for other generations but Boomers and Xers have too much bad blood. We pretty much hate the air you guys breathe. More so if our parents are Boomers.

I would say that the End of the Cold War wasn't random. But also that Boomers and the West Generally had very very little to do with it. Rather Communism collapsed due to its own internal contradictions.

Quote:

Quote:Boomers:  No memories of VJ Day.  Remember the Kennedy Assassination.

As a 1960 boomer I don't remember the Kennedy assassination, though I was overseas at the time.  I remember Katrina even though I'm from Boston - it was a big storm even up here - but not so much I'd consider it a good turning marker.

I'd argue that you're a Jonser Cusper...though on the Boom side of the line. I don't buy into the idea that people born in the early 60s are boomers. They simply can't have had any reference for the key touch stones of Boomer culture. After all what where you 8-9 during Woodstock? 10 for Kent State?

Maybe Disco may mean something for you.

I'm open to the idea that Katrina might be a regional marker. But I'd say that for people down here, it was. What happens in New Orleans has a greater impact in the South than it would in Massachusetts.

Quote:

Quote:I'd say the oldest are in the 15-16 year old range excluding cusps.

I'm not even sure my 11 year old isn't a Millenial.  Depends on when the war comes.

Oh, and nice to see you again!

I'm fairly certain that he isn't. My 20 year old denies being a Millennial (even though I'd argue that he is one). But he largely views them as being self-absorbed hipster types who he'd probably not piss on if they were on fire.

I've been around just not posting as much. Politics has gotten extremely boring and very monochrome lately. Either all one's arguments are "Revere the God Emperor" or "Orange Man Bad!". That said at 40 I'm proud to say that I can still stop a conversation on Thanksgiving by simply making an announcement. My changing party affiliation didn't go over well.

[Warren Dew]

(11-06-2019, 10:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: From Xers?  No.  I won't speak for other generations but Boomers and Xers have too much bad blood.  We pretty much hate the air you guys breathe.  More so if our parents are Boomers.

I would say that the End of the Cold War wasn't random.  But also that Boomers and the West Generally had very very little to do with it.  Rather Communism collapsed due to its own internal contradictions.

So that's where that meme comes from!  It's wrong, though; Communism had survived much worse, despite its internal contradictions, for 60 years.  The best you can rationally say that, in a reversal of WWII, what mattered wasn't the boomer rank and file in the 1980s, but rather the GI leader, Reagan.

Quote:I'd argue that you're a Jonser Cusper...though on the Boom side of the line.  I don't buy into the idea that people born in the early 60s are boomers.  They simply can't have had any reference for the key touch stones of Boomer culture.  After all what where you 8-9 during Woodstock?  10 for Kent State?

I'm going to sound like a boomer here, but my dad (Silent who embraced the awakening) tried to get the whole family to go to Woodstock, and then when my mom decined, tried to get me to go with him.  I was already a square and wasn't interested in any big hippie rock concert (this was before the event so we didn't know the details of what would happen, not that it would have changed things).  I was very aware of Kent State but bought the argument that bricks could be as deadly as bullets; at 10, my conservative views were not yet very nuanced.  On the other hand, I thought it was silly that my dad drew the line at protesters digging mock bomb craters on his pretty University of Michigan campus.

So yeah, I lived it, even before 10.  The only time I ever got in trouble at school was when I trashed a Humphrey campaign sign on school grounds in 1968, though I wouldn't do that today.  I thought the LBJ 1964 Daisy ad was nonsensical.  Granted I mostly favored Goldwater because I liked his name.

I don't think it's that unusual for kids to be politically aware when things get divisive.  My daughter's school was full of 8 year old Sanders versus Clinton arguments, apparently; my daughter bought my arguments for Cruz, so she could stay above the fray.

Quote:I'm fairly certain that he isn't.  My 20 year old denies being a Millennial (even though I'd argue that he is one).  But he largely views them as being self-absorbed hipster types who he'd probably not piss on if they were on fire.

For my daughter, it all depends on how long the war is delayed.  She might have to graduate college to fight in it, though, and I guess an 11 year delay is unlikely.

Your son is just seeing the difference between early Civics and late Civics, or maybe the Civic equivalent of the hippie/square dichotomy.  GI Presidents favored central control until Reagan turned that around, too.

Quote:Politics has gotten extremely boring and very monochrome lately.  Either all one's arguments are "Revere the God Emperor" or "Orange Man Bad!".

That's certainly true.  I mostly stick to Xenakis' thread, where one can at least watch the crisis developing.  Granted it's a pretty morbid interest.

[Hintergrund]

(11-03-2019, 09:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: So were X shaped by the end of the Cold War?  Or don't they think they were involved in any major wars?

They were involved in a long, dragging on war lead in many places. Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Afghanistan... this ain't over yet. And it could become even bigger than WW2.

[Warren Dew]

A long war, yes. A major war, no. The only way it could get bigger than WW2 is if Al Qaeda buys a nuke and nukes Newark or Oakland or something.

[Hintergrund]

(11-08-2019, 12:03 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: A long war, yes.  A major war, no.  The only way it could get bigger than WW2 is if Al Qaeda buys a nuke and nukes Newark or Oakland or something.

Or if many Muslim countries get involved at the same time. Doesn't look like it now, but ISIS was a surprise for everyone too.

[Warren Dew]

The Islamic State wasn't a surprise to me or to anyone else who followed the geopolitics of the area.

An all out attack by Iran on Saudi Arabia could get nasty, but nowhere near WWII - again, unless nukes are involved.

[Hintergrund]

(11-11-2019, 11:43 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The Islamic State wasn't a surprise to me or to anyone else who followed the geopolitics of the area.

An all out attack by Iran on Saudi Arabia could get nasty, but nowhere near WWII - again, unless nukes are involved.

Iran is working on them. And I don't even think they're the worst guys in the area.

But if you have better sources: You don't happen to have saved online links from that time which actually predicted what'd happen?

[Warren Dew]

(11-12-2019, 04:16 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:

(11-11-2019, 11:43 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The Islamic State wasn't a surprise to me or to anyone else who followed the geopolitics of the area.

An all out attack by Iran on Saudi Arabia could get nasty, but nowhere near WWII - again, unless nukes are involved.

Iran is working on them. And I don't even think they're the worst guys in the area.

But if you have better sources: You don't happen to have saved online links from that time which actually predicted what'd happen?

I haven't saved them but I can find some.  Keeping in mind the US didn't take the Islamic State seriously until 2014,

from 2012:

Quote:But while neither the domestic opponents of the Syrian regime nor the international stakeholders have an interest in seeing Syria collapse into sectarian conflict, jihadists want just that. As in Iraq, we could see bombings against Alawites and other non-Sunni groups, including Iranian and Hezbollah targets. This could be extended to attacks in Lebanon in an attempt to stoke a regional sectarian conflict.

The jihadists could well succeed in sparking a regional sectarian conflict that would involve multiple state and non-state actors and would see Iran and Saudi Arabia locked in an intense proxy war. Western or Israeli involvement in the conflict would please the jihadists even more.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/j...ties-syria

From 2013:

Quote:Al Qaeda in Iraq [which later renamed itself to the Islamic State] is trying to use the Syrian conflict to reignite sectarian warfare in Iraq and thereby create an uninterrupted operating space stretching from Iraq to Lebanon. Since mid-May alone, more than 300 people have been killed and hundreds more wounded in bombings by suspected jihadists across Iraq that have largely targeted the country's Shiite population. The jihadists sense a historic opportunity to acquire their largest and most significant area of operation since the movement was based in Afghanistan before the 2001 U.S. invasion.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/j...a-and-iraq
also:
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/j...ties-syria
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/i...-announced
and many others.

[Kinser79]

(11-07-2019, 09:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-06-2019, 10:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: From Xers?  No.  I won't speak for other generations but Boomers and Xers have too much bad blood.  We pretty much hate the air you guys breathe.  More so if our parents are Boomers.

I would say that the End of the Cold War wasn't random.  But also that Boomers and the West Generally had very very little to do with it.  Rather Communism collapsed due to its own internal contradictions.

So that's where that meme comes from!  It's wrong, though; Communism had survived much worse, despite its internal contradictions, for 60 years.  The best you can rationally say that, in a reversal of WWII, what mattered wasn't the boomer rank and file in the 1980s, but rather the GI leader, Reagan.

Not quite.  The USSR survived because of two factors for a long while.  Stalin's ruthlessness and a lack of a real threat after WW2.

I will agree that Reagan as an inspiring leader though.  

Quote:

Quote:I'd argue that you're a Jonser Cusper...though on the Boom side of the line.  I don't buy into the idea that people born in the early 60s are boomers.  They simply can't have had any reference for the key touch stones of Boomer culture.  After all what where you 8-9 during Woodstock?  10 for Kent State?

I'm going to sound like a boomer here, but my dad (Silent who embraced the awakening) tried to get the whole family to go to Woodstock, and then when my mom decined, tried to get me to go with him.  I was already a square and wasn't interested in any big hippie rock concert (this was before the event so we didn't know the details of what would happen, not that it would have changed things).  I was very aware of Kent State but bought the argument that bricks could be as deadly as bullets; at 10, my conservative views were not yet very nuanced.  On the other hand, I thought it was silly that my dad drew the line at protesters digging mock bomb craters on his pretty University of Michigan campus.

So yeah, I lived it, even before 10.  The only time I ever got in trouble at school was when I trashed a Humphrey campaign sign on school grounds in 1968, though I wouldn't do that today.  I thought the LBJ 1964 Daisy ad was nonsensical.  Granted I mostly favored Goldwater because I liked his name.

I don't think it's that unusual for kids to be politically aware when things get divisive.  My daughter's school was full of 8 year old Sanders versus Clinton arguments, apparently; my daughter bought my arguments for Cruz, so she could stay above the fray.

I wouldn't say that sounds boomerish to me.  I was politically aware at a very young age myself.

I'd say campaign signs have no business being on school grounds where the students are minors but that could be a generational quibble.  At my son's school he told me he felt like the lone Republican in a see of "retarded libtards" (his point being that they were twice retarded--he fully views liberalism as a mental disorder; which it very well could be, certainly seems so these days).  Fortunately he found some like minded kids who liked Trump even if they couldn't exactly say why.  

Quote:

Quote:I'm fairly certain that he isn't.  My 20 year old denies being a Millennial (even though I'd argue that he is one).  But he largely views them as being self-absorbed hipster types who he'd probably not piss on if they were on fire.

For my daughter, it all depends on how long the war is delayed.  She might have to graduate college to fight in it, though, and I guess an 11 year delay is unlikely.

Your son is just seeing the difference between early Civics and late Civics, or maybe the Civic equivalent of the hippie/square dichotomy.  GI Presidents favored central control until Reagan turned that around, too.

Possibly.  I've noticed a sharp difference between cohorts born in the mid-late 1980s to Mid 1990s and Late 1990s cohorts at my work place.

Quote:

Quote:Politics has gotten extremely boring and very monochrome lately.  Either all one's arguments are "Revere the God Emperor" or "Orange Man Bad!".

That's certainly true.  I mostly stick to Xenakis' thread, where one can at least watch the crisis developing.  Granted it's a pretty morbid interest.

[/quote]

I don't bother with Xenakis' thread mostly because I believe the man a hack and can read the news for myself.  As time has gone on I find myself needing to come here less and less as the form seems to be degenerating in the same old people posting the same old shit and almost all of it is standard fare I can find elsewhere but don't want to.

[Warren Dew]

(11-12-2019, 10:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-07-2019, 09:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-06-2019, 10:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: From Xers?  No.  I won't speak for other generations but Boomers and Xers have too much bad blood.  We pretty much hate the air you guys breathe.  More so if our parents are Boomers.

I would say that the End of the Cold War wasn't random.  But also that Boomers and the West Generally had very very little to do with it.  Rather Communism collapsed due to its own internal contradictions.

So that's where that meme comes from!  It's wrong, though; Communism had survived much worse, despite its internal contradictions, for 60 years.  The best you can rationally say that, in a reversal of WWII, what mattered wasn't the boomer rank and file in the 1980s, but rather the GI leader, Reagan.

Not quite.  The USSR survived because of two factors for a long while.  Stalin's ruthlessness and a lack of a real threat after WW2.

I will agree that Reagan as an inspiring leader though.  

There were three decades of Stalin, but also a decade of Kruschev and two of Brezhnev.  The ruthlessness wasn't what was holding the Soviet Union together after Stalin.

Lack of a real threat, sure.  That's exactly what Reagan and his boomers provided, though, with the 1980s military buildup and advancements.  He also showed the Soviets that there was an alternative and superior economic model.  Without the external threat and the idea that they could do better, they could have kept limping along forever.

Quote:

Quote:I'm going to sound like a boomer here, but my dad (Silent who embraced the awakening) tried to get the whole family to go to Woodstock, and then when my mom decined, tried to get me to go with him.  I was already a square and wasn't interested in any big hippie rock concert (this was before the event so we didn't know the details of what would happen, not that it would have changed things).  I was very aware of Kent State but bought the argument that bricks could be as deadly as bullets; at 10, my conservative views were not yet very nuanced.  On the other hand, I thought it was silly that my dad drew the line at protesters digging mock bomb craters on his pretty University of Michigan campus.

So yeah, I lived it, even before 10.  The only time I ever got in trouble at school was when I trashed a Humphrey campaign sign on school grounds in 1968, though I wouldn't do that today.  I thought the LBJ 1964 Daisy ad was nonsensical.  Granted I mostly favored Goldwater because I liked his name.

I don't think it's that unusual for kids to be politically aware when things get divisive.  My daughter's school was full of 8 year old Sanders versus Clinton arguments, apparently; my daughter bought my arguments for Cruz, so she could stay above the fray.

I wouldn't say that sounds boomerish to me.  I was politically aware at a very young age myself.

I'd say campaign signs have no business being on school grounds where the students are minors but that could be a generational quibble.  At my son's school he told me he felt like the lone Republican in a see of "retarded libtards" (his point being that they were twice retarded--he fully views liberalism as a mental disorder; which it very well could be, certainly seems so these days).  Fortunately he found some like minded kids who liked Trump even if they couldn't exactly say why.

If I don't sound like a boomer, all the better:  the underlying point is that Woodstock and Kent State were formative experiences for me, in a way they weren't for people born a few years later.

Quote:I don't bother with Xenakis' thread mostly because I believe the man a hack and can read the news for myself.  As time has gone on I find myself needing to come here less and less as the form seems to be degenerating in the same old people posting the same old shit and almost all of it is standard fare I can find elsewhere but don't want to.

The whole forum has certainly gotten a lot more repetitive.

[David Horn]

(11-13-2019, 10:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The whole forum has certainly gotten a lot more repetitive.

With so few participants, that's almost a given.