• 0 Posts
  • 106 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 26th, 2023

help-circle


  • And look at all the other dates others are giving me. They’re not the same as yours. THATS my point. No one actually agrees on the dates and at this point, it’s expanded to include other generations.

    Yet I have 10 different people spouting different dates and all telling me I’m wrong. None of you see that you’re the exact point I was making. Everyone tries to shove in some extra years before or after.


  • fishos@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWhat generation are you?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Thank you, someone who gets it. The definition has expanded so much it’s essentially meaningless now.

    When I grew up and the term was first coined, it refered to the generation coming after mine. It was literally “what will we call this next generation? Well, they’re growing up during the turn of the millennium…”. Then suddenly years later it included my generation. Then suddenly it includes the generation before me? When really it’s just a lazy replacement for “kids these days”.




  • fishos@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlWhat generation are you?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Because every other “generation” is about 10 years and yet somehow “Millennials” are an almost 25 year gap. Notice how it’s “Older Millennial, younger millennial, etc”. You don’t use those qualifiers with the other generations because they are appropriately sized.

    Millennials should be 2-3 named generations. It currently refers to 80’s kids, 90s kids, any kids alive when 2000 happened, and early Aughts kids(probably because the last name sucked and no one wanted to use it). Too many generations wanted the claim of “I was the first generation of the new millennium” and everyone co-opted the term even when it didn’t traditionally apply(newborns because they were closest to the date as opposed to when their major development occured is part of that stretch)






  • You should doubt everything you hear. Pull it apart and see if the pieces themselves make any sense. Examine the logic and look for flaws in it that make the conclusion invalid. Ask questions.

    You SHOULD doubt me, absolutely. Hold everything up to the light. A very important question to ask is “why am I being told this? Who’s interests is served by telling me this?” Examine every piece.

    For example, in the article, notice how everything is “seemingly” “implied” or “appears to”. Those aren’t definitive words. Those are gossip words. No concrete claim is actually made. Just the appearance of one. The sources are just other random Twitter comments speculating.




  • Honestly, I feel like being a Luddite and everytime someone shows art from now on, critique the ever loving hell out of their process.

    “Did you make the brushes yourself from sheep you raised? Did you grind the pigments from plants you grew yourself?”

    Art is amazing, but artists are some of the most delicate people. Their entire career is, in a way, a showcase of themselves, and if you take any part of that away from them or judge it, they become incredibly hostile and take it deeply personally. But literally the same kind of criticisms they’re making now are taught in art history about previous advancements. It’s just the same fragile egos afraid that they’re not as special anymore.






  • fishos@lemmy.worldtoFediverse@lemmy.mlTime for an ICQ for the Fediverse?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    “Hey bro! Here’s some 20 year old program! We should totally reinvent it today! It’s not like anyone has been working on this exact thing for the last 20 years!”. Wtf is with the younger generations obsession with “retro tech”?!? “Look bro, I can do the same thing we can do now, but slower and worse!”

    Also Matrix. If you’re gonna suggest something, maybe make sure it doesn’t already exist.