# Who was more affected by 9/11=Millennials or Gen Z?



## the_immortal_829

In your opinion and of course your experience at the time


----------



## shameless

Whoever had family involved in either generation.

I was 17 when that happened, it did propel the war in IRAQ that came two years later which would have been mostly gen y ground soldiers. Before that incident came it was considered a peace time so some soldiers signed previous to all the havoc who would have been gen Y. 

I do think this distracted from the housing bubble and economy issues of the time so maybe disguised some things which the 2008 recession greatly effected many gen x and gen y both.


----------



## California Kid

Millennials without a doubt. There was honestly no way that Gen Z could have been affected by this event considering that most of them don't remember that day.


----------



## WhataM

Millennials for sure. It's funny to me to see books about 9/11 written for Elementary school kids. I forget they were born after.


----------



## lenyr

Millennials, in particular the older ones. 
The youngest Millennials and oldest Generation Z members probably did not comprehend the significance of 9/11 until years later (unless they were present or had immediate family affected by it), and younger members of Generation Z cannot remember it.


----------



## backdrop12

I was 7 35 miles away from Manhatten. It did not affect me much school wise as I was homeschooled. We just carried along with our lives. I did tho watch it on the TV and understood what the heck was going on . I remember my mom waking me up around 10 AM to us being glued to the TV.


----------



## Fleetfoot

I grew up fairly close to the Somerset crash, so I remember it vividly as it was the first time I saw a teacher cry, the first time they let us out of school before noon, and the first time I started my period. It's one of those days you probably couldn't make me forget.


----------



## PiT

As a Millennial, the experience of 9/11 had a profound impact on me and I remember it well even many years later. A member of Gen Z who can't remember it isn't going to have the same sort of connection to the event.


----------



## Birbsofafeather

There is a large impact to both, I'd imagine. More direct and obviously to millennials, of course, but since that incident shook up the millennials and baby boomers as much as it did, they began to raise Gen Z in a very different environment. Large-scale culturally significant incidents like this leave a societal and cultural impact that spans generations.

I read an article a while back that proposed that the negative outlook of society and life that permeated culture after 9/11 and the cautiousness that it brought caused those born soon after to later have higher depression rates, because they never quite knew a world that wasn't dangerous and were forced to grow up too quickly. I believe it also made that argument for the columbine shooting and how it impacted the depression rates of school children who grew up after it.

Diagnosed depression rates are very complex things and I'm wary at pointing fingers, but it's an interesting concept nonetheless.


----------



## VinnieBob

boomers and X
I know many people whilst hundred's of thousands $ that day
many lost their entire IRA's and retirement


----------



## ShatteredHeart

While I agree wit a lot of my fellow Yers in this thread, I'm going to have to go with Z here. We may have felt the immediate affects, but they had to sacrifice their childhood to the post 9/11 changes in culture.


----------



## 481450

Millennials, because mid to late 90s borns couldn't rationalize the impact of September 11th attacks as it happened.


----------



## 481450

Holiday Hound said:


> While I agree wit a lot of my fellow Yers in this thread, I'm going to have to go with Z here. We may have felt the immediate affects, but they had to sacrifice their childhood to the post 9/11 changes in culture.


I disagree, the younger Gen Y (1990-1994) had to sacrifice their childhood while Gen Z grew up and perceived the post 9/11 world as normal.


----------



## California Kid

WiiFan said:


> I disagree, the younger Gen Y (1990-1994) had to sacrifice their childhood while Gen Z grew up and perceived the post 9/11 world as usual.


How? Those folks already had most of their childhood years behind them, so I don't understand why they had to sacrifice them.


----------



## Willtip98

If anything, I think Gen X was more effected by 9/11 than Millennials. They had just started young adulthood at the time and made up the majority of workers in the World Trade Center, while most Millennials weren't even in the workforce yet (The oldest probably had at just part-time jobs at most). They also made up the majority of soldiers who enlisted to fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Finally, Gen X was more used to witnessing terrorism from hearing about events like the WTC bombing (1993), Oklahoma City bombing (1995), Centennial Olympic Park bombing (1996), US Embassy bombings (1998) and the USS Cole bombing (2000). So they understood the full scale of the 9/11 attacks as they occurred, unlike most Millennials.


----------



## oreocheesecake

It affected older Millennials the same as Gen X, younger Millennials didn’t really understand it.

Most Gen Zers in my experience don’t even care about 9/11. It’s just another historical event to them.


----------



## Willtip98

oreocheesecake said:


> It affected older Millennials the same as Gen X, younger Millennials didn’t really understand it.
> 
> Most Gen Zers in my experience don’t even care about 9/11. It’s just another historical event to them.


With this in mind, where do you think Z starts? I've seen it start as early as 1991 and as late as 2005.


----------



## q543frodomar

Gen X would've been the real ones affected. They were in their 20s and 30s when it happened. They were hit harder than Millennials, though Older Millennials were affected as many were 16-19 at the time of the attacks. Younger Millennials could have clearly remembered it as they were 5-8 at the time of the attacks but wouldn't have been affected by it. Most Young Millennials weren't in or didn't enter the workforce during the recession except for the very oldest in that cohort.


----------



## oreocheesecake

Willtip98 said:


> With this in mind, where do you think Z starts? I've seen it start as early as 1991 and as late as 2005.


1991 is clearly absurd. I think 1995 is still too early. 2000 is a neat starting point though I see them as being pretty firmly Z.

I don’t really know.


----------



## Willtip98

oreocheesecake said:


> 1991 is clearly absurd. I think 1995 is still too early. 2000 is a neat starting point though I see them as being pretty firmly Z.
> 
> I don’t really know.


A lot of us (Myself included) are onboard with 2000 being the starting point.


----------



## q543frodomar

Willtip98 said:


> A lot of us (Myself included) are onboard with 2000 being the starting point.


Yeah, but you also seem to think 1999 is a start point too. Kinda like how I see 1997 is one of the best start points even though many don't agree. And not just the fact that they weren't in elementary school before 9/11.


----------



## Willtip98

q543frodomar said:


> Yeah, but you also seem to think 1999 is a start point too. Kinda like how I see 1997 is one of the best start points even though many don't agree. And not just the fact that they weren't in elementary school before 9/11.


1997 and 1998 babies were in preschool before 9/11 though, so that wouldn't work. Plus, they entered Kindergarten before Broadband outsold dial-up in mid-2004, spent the majority of K-5 before the iPhone was launched, graduated high school under Obama, and were able to vote in the historic 2016 election.


----------



## Willtip98

Regarding this "Millennial or Gen Z debate," if going through 9/11 as a kid/being in school for it is a defining Millennial trait, then 1998 would be the perfect endpoint, as we turned 3 (Beginning of childhood) in 2001 and entered preschool that year. Along with the facts listed above. ^^


----------



## q543frodomar

Willtip98 said:


> 1997 and 1998 babies were in preschool before 9/11 though, so that wouldn't work. Plus, they entered Kindergarten before Broadband outsold dial-up in mid-2004, spent the majority of K-5 before the iPhone was launched, graduated high school under Obama, and were able to vote in the historic 2016 election.


1997 spent most of their K-5 years after YouTube, PSP, Razr launched, as well as Broadband's overtaking of dial up, and after DVD overtook VHS, AND after the Klasky Csupo and Powerhouse Eras on Nick and Cartoon Network, respectively, ended. 1998 babies also entered middle school and spent most of their K-12 schooling after Obama entered office, both 1997 and 1998 entered high school after smartphone adoption rate hit 50% in mid-2011, and they also were the first to enter middle school after the iPhone launched, LCD TVs outsold CRT TVs and after the Recession started.


----------



## VinnieBob

Neither
It was boomers/ gen x who were affected the most
Many were ruined financially by it

We lost many freedoms the younger generations never knew existed


----------



## q543frodomar

Satanbobevilpants said:


> Neither
> It was boomers/ gen x who were affected the most
> Many were ruined financially by it
> 
> We lost many freedoms the younger generations never knew existed


Agreed. Though you could make a case for 1981-1983 having been affected by it.


----------



## Handsome Dyke

Willtip98 said:


> If anything, I think Gen X was more effected by 9/11 than Millennials. They had just started young adulthood at the time and made up the majority of workers in the World Trade Center, while most Millennials weren't even in the workforce yet (The oldest probably had at just part-time jobs at most).


 We really need to specify who is Gen-X and who are Millennials here. I thought I was considered a millennial (born 1980), and not only had I had a job at that point, I was enlisted in the military when 9/11 happened.


----------



## Handsome Dyke

California Kid said:


> Millennials without a doubt. There was honestly no way that Gen Z could have been affected by this event considering that most of them don't remember that day.


 Being affected by something does not require remembering it.


----------



## q543frodomar

Saiyed En Sabah Nur said:


> We really need to specify who is Gen-X and who are Millennials here. I thought I was considered a millennial (born 1980), and not only had I had a job at that point, I was enlisted in the military when 9/11 happened.


Actually, I would say 1980 is tail end Gen X, they graduated before Y2K and entered high school before Windows 95 launched, plus you are an 80s kid and 90s teen.


----------



## Willtip98

q543frodomar said:


> 1997 spent most of their K-5 years after YouTube, PSP, Razr launched, as well as Broadband's overtaking of dial up, and after DVD overtook VHS, AND after the Klasky Csupo and Powerhouse Eras on Nick and Cartoon Network, respectively, ended. 1998 babies also entered middle school and spent most of their K-12 schooling after Obama entered office, both 1997 and 1998 entered high school after smartphone adoption rate hit 50% in mid-2011, and they also were the first to enter middle school after the iPhone launched, LCD TVs outsold CRT TVs and after the Recession started.


But we also left Elementary School before the "tech boom" in 2010 with the launch of Instagram and the iPad, and before the US switched from Analog to Digital TV broadcasting in June 2009. 

There's really more reasons for '97/'98 babies to be Y than Z.


----------



## q543frodomar

Willtip98 said:


> But we also left Elementary School before the "tech boom" in 2010 with the launch of Instagram and the iPad, and before the US switched from Analog to Digital TV broadcasting in June 2009.
> 
> There's really more reasons for '97/'98 babies to be Y than Z.


Maybe, but there are many Z traits that 98 babies share too. 1996 as an end point makes sense, same with 1998, 1999, or even 2001 for the cusp.


----------



## angelfish

None of us, really. I think the older generations felt the impact more. I was pretty young when it happened personally... I understood that it was tragic and entailed policy changes, but I don't see much evidence that it really impacted my generation's thinking, much less generations younger than us. The only real difference I experience is remembering the "good old days" where you could board a flight without getting every orifice scanned. I'm sorry that sounds like it has a lot of levity, but realistically, I see 9/11 as a minor event. Yes, it was horrible, but it is small-scale compared to other violence and human rights crises including instances of genocide and human trafficking that are chronically ongoing.


----------



## Steelight

angelfish said:


> None of us, really. I think the older generations felt the impact more. I was pretty young when it happened personally... I understood that it was tragic and entailed policy changes, but I don't see much evidence that it really impacted my generation's thinking, much less generations younger than us. The only real difference I experience is remembering the "good old days" where you could board a flight without getting every orifice scanned. I'm sorry that sounds like it has a lot of levity, but realistically, I see 9/11 as a minor event. Yes, it was horrible, but it is small-scale compared to other violence and human rights crises including instances of genocide and human trafficking that are chronically ongoing.


That's a very interesting take. I agree that older generations probably FELT the effects more than us millenials or Gen Z.

I wish I had a solid answer, but between those two generations, I guess millenials just because we were affected in all the same ways Gen Z was, except that millenials actually remember 9/11 and most Gen Z were either not born, or too young to remember it.


----------



## Willtip98

Steelight said:


> That's a very interesting take. I agree that older generations probably FELT the effects more than us millenials or Gen Z.
> 
> I wish I had a solid answer, but between those two generations, I guess millenials just because we were affected in all the same ways Gen Z was, except that millenials actually remember 9/11 and most Gen Z were either not born, or too young to remember it.


Yes, you'd have to have been at least 3 at the time to remember it. I find it disturbing when kids who weren't alive for it post memes about it every anniversary like it's a joke.


----------



## Willtip98

q543frodomar said:


> Maybe, but there are many Z traits that 98 babies share too. 1996 as an end point makes sense, same with 1998, 1999, or even 2001 for the cusp.


While 1999 is a good starting point, not many sources start it there. Quite frankly, it would look very controversial if it did, since Y would now include all 90s babies except them.


----------



## karlpalaka

q543frodomar said:


> Maybe, but there are many Z traits that 98 babies share too. 1996 as an end point makes sense, same with 1998, 1999, or even 2001 for the cusp.


What about 1997? Why cant that be an endpoint? Of course, I dont see it as an endpoint, but you listed ever year except 1997.


----------



## karlpalaka

Willtip98 said:


> 1997 and 1998 babies were in preschool before 9/11 though, so that wouldn't work. Plus, they entered Kindergarten before Broadband outsold dial-up in mid-2004, spent the majority of K-5 before the iPhone was launched, graduated high school under Obama, and were able to vote in the historic 2016 election.


So were 1999, which is why I see 2000 as the best start for Gen Z. Voting in the 2016 election depends. You need US citizenship to be able to vote in it.


----------



## karlpalaka

auser said:


> I disagree, the younger Gen Y (1990-1994) had to sacrifice their childhood while Gen Z grew up and perceived the post 9/11 world as normal.


While someone born in the those years would remember it, I wouldnt say they were completely affected by it as 1992-1994 were too young to give it any importance, and some of them may not even remember it.


----------



## karlpalaka

q543frodomar said:


> 1997 spent most of their K-5 years after YouTube, PSP, Razr launched, as well as Broadband's overtaking of dial up, and after DVD overtook VHS, AND after the Klasky Csupo and Powerhouse Eras on Nick and Cartoon Network, respectively, ended. 1998 babies also entered middle school and spent most of their K-12 schooling after Obama entered office, both 1997 and 1998 entered high school after smartphone adoption rate hit 50% in mid-2011, and they also were the first to enter middle school after the iPhone launched, LCD TVs outsold CRT TVs and after the Recession started.


Smart phone adoption rate hit 50% of the US population in 2014 actually, so 1999 were the last to begin high school before that happened. If sixth grade is part of elementary school, 1996 would be the first to enter middle school after the iphone was launched and 2000 would be the first to enter middle school after social media usage hit 50% of the Us population in 2011. Many reasons why I see 1999 as the last of Gen Y.


----------



## karlpalaka

Willtip98 said:


> Yes, you'd have to have been at least 3 at the time to remember it. I find it disturbing when kids who weren't alive for it post memes about it every anniversary like it's a joke.


2 actually, so 1999 were the last. Yes, I find it disturbing too, not cause they werent alive for it, but cause it is not something to joke about. To be safe, at least 5, and for the sure guarantee, 8-10.


----------



## q543frodomar

karlpalaka said:


> Well 1985 were the last to have X traits in their childhood, while 1991 were the last to have a core Y childhood. 1986 did have a core Y childhood, but once they got to high school or college, they started acting like today's Gen Z kids, except no smartphones or tablets. 1980-1983 is the cusp between X and Y (leaning towards Y), and 1995-1999 is the cusp between Y and Z (leaning towards Y).


So you're saying that 1979 is 100% X but 1980 is X/Y leaning Y? That makes no sense!


----------



## ZeldaFan20

q543frodomar said:


> I think 1981 is the first of Z and 1996 is the last of Z but it doesn't make 1997-1999 babies different from 1996 babies, same with 1980 babies and 1981-1983 babies, there is hardly any difference.


I agree. Because at the end of the day, regardless of what demographers or sociologists say, those born in the Late 90s are still apart of my 'personal' generation of people, in the same way that those born in the early-mid 90s are, because those are the people I grew up with. The boundaries for relation also become more fluid as you age, so an 18 year old born in 2001, while would've grown up pretty different from myself, is a lot more relatable to me now then 5 years ago (when I was 18, and an 01' born was 13), and that will only to continue to grow closer. That's the natural progression of time right there.


----------



## q543frodomar

ZeldaFan20 said:


> I agree. Because at the end of the day, regardless of what demographers or sociologists say, those born in the Late 90s are still apart of my 'personal' generation of people, in the same way that those born in the early-mid 90s are, because those are the people I grew up with. The boundaries for relation also become more fluid as you age, so an 18 year old born in 2001, while would've grown up pretty different from myself, is a lot more relatable to me now then 5 years ago (when I was 18, and an 01' born was 13), and that will only to continue to grow closer. That's the natural progression of time right there.


Yeah, I could see a relation to 1996 babies and 2001 babies, mainly because they're both adults.

2002 and 2007 babies will not relate to themselves at the current time in either childhood or the state of their life in 2019. One, the 2002 baby, can get their license, and many have already entered the workforce, while a 2007 baby cannot even join most social media sites without lying about their age, are still in middle school, can't drive to work, and they are arguably still in their childhood. I think i'll be able to relate to them in 2025 when they're adults.


----------



## Willtip98

q543frodomar said:


> Oops, 1981 is the first of Y and 1997 is the first of Z.


First you're onboard with my (And others') 2000 start point, then you listen to Pew's so-called "Research." Make up your mind...
They really just pulled that year out of their ass...


----------



## q543frodomar

Willtip98 said:


> First you're onboard with my (And others') 2000 start point, then you listen to Pew's so-called "Research." Make up your mind...
> They really just pulled that year out of their ass...


I said on another site that i'm sticking with the 1981-1996 definition. Yes, 97-99 babies were in school before 2005, but they spent most of their K-5 years afterwards, and they also were all still in elementary school when the iPhone launched in 2007. I have already explained it in bigger detail before. Many of the things that 1997 fall under aren't exactly Millennial traits.


----------



## karlpalaka

q543frodomar said:


> I said on another site that i'm sticking with the 1981-1996 definition. Yes, 97-99 babies were in school before 2005, but they spent most of their K-5 years afterwards, and they also were all still in elementary school when the iPhone launched in 2007. I have already explained it in bigger detail before. Many of the things that 1997 fall under aren't exactly Millennial traits.


Seriously, most buffoons use the 1981-1996 definition only because Pew insanely changed it to that last year. It wasnt even a definition before 2018. Wait next year, and they will push it back to 1995 and then 1994. Just wait.


----------



## karlpalaka

q543frodomar said:


> I said on another site that i'm sticking with the 1981-1996 definition. Yes, 97-99 babies were in school before 2005, but they spent most of their K-5 years afterwards, and they also were all still in elementary school when the iPhone launched in 2007. I have already explained it in bigger detail before. Many of the things that 1997 fall under aren't exactly Millennial traits.


Technically, so were 1996 as sixth grade is also considered elementary school in many cities.


----------



## karlpalaka

Willtip98 said:


> First you're onboard with my (And others') 2000 start point, then you listen to Pew's so-called "Research." Make up your mind...
> They really just pulled that year out of their ass...


Yeah, to be honest, I am planning to write a strongly worded email to them explaining why 1997 is not gen z.


----------



## karlpalaka

ZeldaFan20 said:


> I agree. Because at the end of the day, regardless of what demographers or sociologists say, those born in the Late 90s are still apart of my 'personal' generation of people, in the same way that those born in the early-mid 90s are, because those are the people I grew up with. The boundaries for relation also become more fluid as you age, so an 18 year old born in 2001, while would've grown up pretty different from myself, is a lot more relatable to me now then 5 years ago (when I was 18, and an 01' born was 13), and that will only to continue to grow closer. That's the natural progression of time right there.


Yeah, I can see that too. When you are little, you wont even relate that well to people who are year under you cause they are in a different grade level, but once you are an adult, you can relate pretty well to people who are ten years younger than you, if that person is also an adult.


----------



## karlpalaka

q543frodomar said:


> Yeah, I could see a relation to 1996 babies and 2001 babies, mainly because they're both adults.
> 
> 2002 and 2007 babies will not relate to themselves at the current time in either childhood or the state of their life in 2019. One, the 2002 baby, can get their license, and many have already entered the workforce, while a 2007 baby cannot even join most social media sites without lying about their age, are still in middle school, can't drive to work, and they are arguably still in their childhood. I think i'll be able to relate to them in 2025 when they're adults.


But they will be in college, while you wont, if you can manage to graduate within 4 years, which is actually very hard. Take it from someone who actually barely managed to get his degree in four years as a lot of classes were either being waitlisted or cancelled.


----------



## karlpalaka

q543frodomar said:


> So you're saying that 1979 is 100% X but 1980 is X/Y leaning Y? That makes no sense!


As fully grown adults, obviously 1979 and 1980 will relate, and once 2000 becomes fully grown adults, I can relate to them, but in terms of childhood, every year is different in its own way, though 1979 is not Y to me. 1980 and 1981 both have X traits despite being Y, so really 1980-1983 is xennial. Many reasons why I stated this. Xennials were ideally in college when 9/11 happened, and they were the last to be old enough to get a drivers license before the 90s ended while still teenagers in the 90s in countries that have 16 as the legal driving age.


----------



## ZeldaFan20

karlpalaka said:


> As fully grown adults, obviously 1979 and 1980 will relate, and once 2000 becomes fully grown adults, I can relate to them, but in terms of childhood, every year is different in its own way, though 1979 is not Y to me. 1980 and 1981 both have X traits despite being Y, so really 1980-1983 is xennial. Many reasons why I stated this. Xennials were ideally in college when 9/11 happened, and they were the last to be old enough to get a drivers license before the 90s ended while still teenagers in the 90s in countries that have 16 as the legal driving age.


Come to New Jersey then. Here, where the age one could legally get their driver's license is 17. Meaning those born in 1983 wouldn't be able to legally drive on their own till 2000, "after the 1990s". That's a horrible example to use. Ages 16-17 (the peak of one's teenaged years and overall 'youth' period) or age 18 are much more concise and universal, but using age 16 as justification because in some U.S. states a teen at that age could legally drive on their own is an awful example to use.


----------



## karlpalaka

ZeldaFan20 said:


> karlpalaka said:
> 
> 
> 
> As fully grown adults, obviously 1979 and 1980 will relate, and once 2000 becomes fully grown adults, I can relate to them, but in terms of childhood, every year is different in its own way, though 1979 is not Y to me. 1980 and 1981 both have X traits despite being Y, so really 1980-1983 is xennial. Many reasons why I stated this. Xennials were ideally in college when 9/11 happened, and they were the last to be old enough to get a drivers license before the 90s ended while still teenagers in the 90s in countries that have 16 as the legal driving age.
> 
> 
> 
> Come to New Jersey then. Here, where the age one could legally get their driver's license is 17. Meaning those born in 1983 wouldn't be able to legally drive on their own till 2000, "after the 1990s". That's a horrible example to use. Ages 16-17 (the peak of one's teenaged years and overall 'youth' period) or age 18 are much more concise and universal, but using age 16 as justification because in some U.S. states a teen at that age could legally drive on their own is an awful example to use.
Click to expand...

Then, I take back what I said about the driving age cause a few states used to let 15 year olds drive. I think California used to let 15 year olds get a license back in the 2000s, as one of my former next door neighbors whom I met when she was 14 started driving before she was even 16.


----------



## q543frodomar

karlpalaka said:


> Seriously, most buffoons use the 1981-1996 definition only because Pew insanely changed it to that last year. It wasnt even a definition before 2018. Wait next year, and they will push it back to 1995 and then 1994. Just wait.


It has more to do with actual REAL LIFE milestones than the fact that they keep changing it. It's not just because of Pew, an it makes sense!


----------



## q543frodomar

karlpalaka said:


> As fully grown adults, obviously 1979 and 1980 will relate, and once 2000 becomes fully grown adults, I can relate to them, but in terms of childhood, every year is different in its own way, though 1979 is not Y to me. 1980 and 1981 both have X traits despite being Y, so really 1980-1983 is xennial. Many reasons why I stated this. Xennials were ideally in college when 9/11 happened, and they were the last to be old enough to get a drivers license before the 90s ended while still teenagers in the 90s in countries that have 16 as the legal driving age.


It doesn't work like that. 1979 cannot be 100% X while 1980 is X/Y leaning Y! That makes literally no sense. That's like saying that a car is the same as a motorcycle, it makes not a lick of sense.


----------



## q543frodomar

karlpalaka said:


> But they will be in college, while you wont, if you can manage to graduate within 4 years, which is actually very hard. Take it from someone who actually barely managed to get his degree in four years as a lot of classes were either being waitlisted or cancelled.


Honestly, anyone age 18 to 21 could relate to each other in some kind of way. All of them are adults.


----------



## q543frodomar

karlpalaka said:


> Technically, so were 1996 as sixth grade is also considered elementary school in many cities.


Where I live, and in many places, sixth grade is actually middle school.


----------



## karlpalaka

q543frodomar said:


> Where I live, and in many places, sixth grade is actually middle school.


Some places put seventh-twelfth grade as one school, so no seperate middle and high schools. For me, it was elementary school in sixth grade, but now, some schools are deciding to make sixth grade part of middle school.


----------



## karlpalaka

q543frodomar said:


> Honestly, anyone age 18 to 21 could relate to each other in some kind of way. All of them are adults.


Well, actually 18-21 year olds are college students, and depending on the country, they would be old enough to smoke, but not drink. 18-19 is still too young to be considered adult. Technically even 20 and 21, but 19 is teenager, and 20 has no name, so 20 is adult.


----------



## karlpalaka

q543frodomar said:


> It doesn't work like that. 1979 cannot be 100% X while 1980 is X/Y leaning Y! That makes literally no sense. That's like saying that a car is the same as a motorcycle, it makes not a lick of sense.


1979 is 100% X. I mean some early 80s babies view themselves as X and not Y. 1980-1983 are xennials to me. They were ideally in college during 9/11, while 1979 were the last to graduate college before the attacks ideally, and they were the last to be born before the world's first cellular network. Your analogy made me laugh considering how stupid it was. A car being a motorcycle. I think a baseball bat is a tennis racket.


----------

