• numberfour002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The definition of these “generations” is arbitrary and subjective. The reality of the matter is no such person exists. So, I completely disagree.

    Even if everyone in the world agreed that Gen Z is all people born between 1995 and 2010 (which would require you to be ignorant, naive, or just plain stupid), it ignores the reality of things like geography, culture, time zones, etc. Literally hundreds (if not thousands) of people could have been born at the exact same moment of time, but due to the magic of time zones, some would be Gen Z, others would not. That’s super arbitrary if you ask me.

    So, it’s more like theoretically some person is the oldest member of Gen Z, for some given interpretation of what “Gen Z” means. But in practice, there’s no such thing. In some ways it’s like a mathematical limit. There’s no smallest number greater than 0, because you can always devise a smaller fraction. But, if you artificially and arbitrarily limit your resolution (let’s say to 1/10th), only then can you declare some number the smallest (ex: .1).

    • VaultBoyNewVegas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Total agreement. I was born in 96 yet grew up with a mega drive, a big bulky Compaq PC with roller coaster tycoon, tomb raider 3 or 4 and bugs bunny and taz time busters and a need for speed game all played with a joystick. maps being used, phone books, floppy disks, video tapes, cassettes and other things “90’s kids” would get yet my family didn’t have a lot of money so we had old stuff when I was young.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      It kind of applied with the Baby Boomers because there really was an explosion in births after WW2 ended. The GIs came home and their sweethearts were ready to settle down and be Mommies.

      But I agree; you can’t arbitrarily say that someone born Dec. 31, 1999 is different from someone born Jan 1, 2000.

    • Pohl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s such a silly concept. This massive superstructure of division to replace the simple idea that “I have a lot in common with peers in my age cohort”.

      As soon as somebody says “technically you are a member of generation___”, you can ignore them. Anyone who puts a generation label at the center of their identity probably doesn’t have a lot else going on.

    • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Contemporary generation labels are the new astrology, categories that use vague Barnum statements that can apply to anyone. Generational labels applied in an historic context can provide new insights, but the more arbitrary the boundary for inclusion the more arbitrary the properties of the group and more likely to confirm bias than provide new ideas about common beliefs or characteristics within the group not experienced or shared by others.