Millennials and GenZ horribly misidentified

[AspieMillennial]

(05-04-2019, 04:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-03-2019, 09:23 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-02-2019, 11:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-02-2019, 08:02 PM)NobodyImportant Wrote:

(05-01-2019, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They act and think like millennials, and were all calling themselves that before Pew intervened. The 1996 cut off date made by Pew is made by a demographer.

This is the exact opposite of true.
I don't know what sort of people you've been talking to, but i know people from all these age ranges. And the pew research additionally confirms that there are absolutely significant differences between the millennial average and people born after 96.
I have also explained to you in detail why it's precisely the opposite of what you say. People after 97 have little in common in their psychological development, read: traits, with anyone before that and to say that there was a significant change in people after 2005 trait wise is completely nonsensical as i explicitly addressed that there were no sociopolitical developments at that time significant enough to cause that.
It's like you've literally not read any of my post.

"It went on and continued. No national emergency or total war followed;"
Are you insane?
Literally nothing about life past 9/11 is the same as before.
The idea of an oil war got pushed into public knowledge, travel by air or public transport has changed forever and will possibly never be the same again.
If you showed someone from the 90s the way we are living right now the most shocking thing would be the absolute loss of any sort of privacy. The NSA violating the constitution, the CIA violating human rights, the army committing warcrimes, this all came after 2001, and was never an issue like this. In fact the most animosity towards the political elite from both sides of the political aisle is exclusively due to what sort of liberties were taken after that point in time. Businesses are allowed to do a lot more compared to private persons after this, because they did not have their rights curtailed because they are needed for the economy but regular people had. The economic crash might have made things more dire, but the "screw regular folk, what matters is state and economic interests" which causes the current anti system climate, started exactly after 9/11.
There were invasions and military action in afghanistan and iraq.
And the policy of "if someone tries to put US personnel on trial for warcrimes the standing order is to invade denHaag" is i would say a pretty fucking huge policy change along with torture now being a totally fine thing to do, and constitutional violations in spying on your own citizens directly and with the help of corporations being commonplace.
It's exactly the sort of thing that leads to the old system showing that it is unfit to function at least as much as the new generations are concerned.
The vietnam war happened because there was a clear opponent. Iraq had not much directly to do with 9/11 which prompted it since it was the war on terror.
As a matter of fact from a more historical and less sociological point of view the "war on terror" is considered a new historical epoch on earth as a whole.

The great recession meant that less people have a stable economic background. it has more longterm consequences but is less directly immediately painful than the 29 crash.
And it most definitely is not something that could be noticed by people who were young at that time.
Additionally i have no idea about what sort of true predictions you are talking about since we only have data concerning the people 1997-2004. And any other predictions would also work with 911 being the start. There isn't a single person in the world who is unaware of global terrorism at this point. This started in 2001.
And last not least the economic crisis wasn't a sudden crash. The future prospects of people were already shit, with the entire middle class being pushed into wage slavery since way before, and millennials already having bad prospects for the futur with overly expensive but absoutely necessary university degrees. The only thing 2008 changed was that the job crisis became a bit more dire, which affected the already disenfranchised millennials disproportionately.

Overall the one thing to keep in mind is: Occupy Wallstreet was perhaps the most millennial thing in history.
You are saying that people born in 2004 who were SEVEN at that time are in the same cohort, and could totaly feel that.
I'm saying that the youngest you could be to get and in any way empathize with that crowning millennial event is 14-15. Which with '11-'12 means '97.

I urge you to reconsider because i couldn't find a singe thing among the stuff you said that was actually provably right.

I very much and totally disagree. But all opinions are welcome on the site.

The millennial 2000 cohorts heroically demonstrated for freedom from our deadly insane obsession with guns. If you saw that rally, you can't doubt their civic archetype. And they helped produce the best midterm election turnout in decades. Those same cohorts of young people and even younger are now demonstrating loudly about the greatest crisis of our time, climate change, which started to come into focus in about 2007, and especially in 2010 with the big oil spill that Dumpty Trumpty is now covering up and ignoring. The civics are starting to learn to be civics. That means more than occupying a street. It means participating in civic affairs. It means voting for starters. I agree Occupy was led by millennials, but when it ended, that by no means ended civic actions by millennials, including by younger cohorts than those who Occupied-- but didn't follow through with making their concerns politically effective and partisan, and thus had no civic effect to speak of. And that means Occupy was definitely NOT the most millennial thing in history, and not the crowning event of anything. It was mostly a lot of sound and fury, signifying virtually nothing. It is not civic unless it leads directly to political action within the system as well as outside it. The labor protesters of the 1930s led directly to real power for unions. That was civic. Occupy 2011 was OK, it got some people talking, but not so much as far as real change is concerned. BY the way, I participated in Occupy too so I know all about it.

The 2008 recession was definitely a sudden crash, in September of that year. Look back at the record of wall street then. If not for lessons learned and timely intervention by the government, we would have fallen into the worst depression EVER. Imagine millions of million-dollar mortgages evaporating. That was a huge disaster. Global terrorism means nothing to the average person; it's far away, and so were the stupid wars. Nor do I think the NSA violating privacy, etc, bad policy as it was, had any real impact on most Americans. Having your life savings and your home wiped out, did. Losing your job did. Lower income did. And this crisis continues today, because Trump is a total liar and a total creep. His claims are bogus. Most people have not recovered from the crash, and that most certainly includes 1997-2004 cohorts, who are entering an economy in debt and with everything unaffordable.

The old system was to wage unnecessary wars like Vietnam, which did NOT have a legitimate opponent, but was an unprovoked US invasion, and that policy was simply continued in Iraq. It was ZERO as far as anything new is concerned. If we don't agree on that, we live in alternate universes.

I read your post. I would agree with pushing the Gen Z start back to 2003, according to descriptions I've heard and seen about children at that age, but not to 1997. That implies that 2001 was the start of the 4th Turning. That is an event I predicted. And it is absolutely NOT the start of a 4T. I would never agree with that. You are out of touch with recent history. I doubt you lived through that time.

You wait and see. This 4T will end in 2028 and 2029. 4Ts do not last close to 30 years.

Speak for yourself. I'm Millennial and roll my eyes all the time because mass shootings are overplayed in the media as a tactic to make us feel unsafe. The media is just a 24/7 news agency based on making profits off our fears. If anything they create more mass shootings because people want the fame. Then idiot protestors want no more guns.

I should correct my statement at least this much: I shouldn't say I will never change my mind on something, because that is closed-minded. I'll just say I doubt I will ever agree that 9-11-2001 was the start of a 4th turning.

Mass shootings are definitely not over-played, and millennials know this and are mobilizing against this very-real threat to our lives. Mass shootings by nuts with guns, and shootings of innocent people of color by police, are linked, and are vastly under-reported. Thousands occur each year. Such gun violence is not the whole of this 4T by any means, but it is one element of it and a major motivating factor for circa-2000-born cohort millennials to take civic action. You can't deny that they did this last year. They mobilized millions of youth to vote. That is civic action. Occupying a street is not necessarily civic at all. Lots of Boomer prophets occupied administration buildings and streets in the sixties. Nomad Xers "acted up" to get attention about AIDS in the eighties.

If you think protesters against guns are idiots, well, we have a major disagreement there, and you disagree with a majority of millennials on this too. Americans are the ONLY developed country with such an idiot gun obsession that blocks meaningful gun control, and it's time for this obsession to END! We are not cowboys and indians! Grow up!

The 1997-2003 cohorts are NOW acting civically about guns, about climate change, and about inequality, college debt and low wages. Unlike you, they know these issues are civic and are on the ballot for a vote. They are just coming into their own as a civic generation, and we haven't seen anything yet from millennials, born from 1982 to 2003.

I live in the US and know first wave Millennials who own guns and are pro gun. However, I do live in an area where Trump signs were everywhere so maybe I'm biased. The crime rate is falling lower yet the media demands I think the sky is falling. I think there are different threats but mass shooting is too rare. I think the media gives the shooters too much attention and this glamourizes it for would be shooters who want infamy. I'm not alone on these views either because lots of younger Americans agree.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...-americans