this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
110 points (91.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43940 readers
977 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
'93, younger end of millennial.
Not big on generation labels though, they feel like a failed experiment. People are born every day of every year and our experiences overlap in a gradient. They don't separate into distinct portions.
The baby boom was an actual phenomenon, but every label afterwards feels arbitrary.
I agree that it's not a useful metric to apply to an individual. "Ok boomer" aside, there is too much variation within a generation for it to be a useful way to draw any conclusions about a single person.
Where generations are useful is in demography. There is no strict dividing line between a lot of kids of demographics, but categorizing them can still give us useful data for studying populations