To be Gen Alpha you must be the child of Gen Z who had to be the child of Millennials.
So if you agree that a millennial was born in 1980 and had kids at 18 who then had a kid at 18 then a Gen Alpha would be like 6 or 7 years old maximum.
Yes, as I have nephews that are gen alpha, that is how that works. You have kids now that are not gen Z and are around 10 that never knew MWC. Just because someone is young does not invalidate their status as people (yet, don’t give them any ideas).
The problem is there are people in the comments who seem to think they’re Gen Alpha, Millennial, or Gen Z without realizing they skipped generations in their calculation.
I’m saying it goes in sequence, that it can’t go from Gen X > Gen Z without a Millennial intermediary. Therefor I am in fact the one saying there is no skipping.
Literally not how it works at all. Generations are defined on the year you were born, not who you were born to.
Mick Jagger was born in 1943, making him part of the Silent Generation. When his wife had their latest kid, in 2016, Jagger was 73. That child is not a baby boomer.
Do you know what the word Generation means? Literally in no other context is it defined that way, but you’re using Wikipedia as a source so clearly I don’t expect you to have any learning capacity at this point. Maybe you really are Gen Alpha at your mommy’s tablet.
I think it was a banger insult, just enough not to seem unreasonable. If I wanted to alienate the opposition then discussion would very quickly become meaningless, like your comment for example: completely devoid of any relevant context, only an attack on my person.
I can’t believe you’re this confident about something so basic and somehow you’re wrong
Also, what, can’t win an argument without infantilizing your opponent? I mean it’s clear you know nothing about this topic and just assume you can “debate” about it using google or whatever, ironic coming from the guy who discounts wikipedia. That’s better than anything you’d know by a good margin anyways.
I am refiering to generation alpha. (2010 on since there is not really an agreed on date.)
To be Gen Alpha you must be the child of Gen Z who had to be the child of Millennials.
So if you agree that a millennial was born in 1980 and had kids at 18 who then had a kid at 18 then a Gen Alpha would be like 6 or 7 years old maximum.
Yes, as I have nephews that are gen alpha, that is how that works. You have kids now that are not gen Z and are around 10 that never knew MWC. Just because someone is young does not invalidate their status as people (yet, don’t give them any ideas).
The problem is there are people in the comments who seem to think they’re Gen Alpha, Millennial, or Gen Z without realizing they skipped generations in their calculation.
Yes and yet you are the only person that seems to think this is how generations work, that somehow you can skip at all.
I think you’ve replied to the wrong person. I’m the one saying that you cannot skip.
Wait, no. You are the one that thinks you can skip!
As in the whole concept of skipping generations is insane in this context.
You almost got me there.
I’m saying it goes in sequence, that it can’t go from Gen X > Gen Z without a Millennial intermediary. Therefor I am in fact the one saying there is no skipping.
This is not true. I’m a millennial (1989) but my parents are boomers (1950s), not Gen X, as are the vast majority of my friends. Not everyone has kids in their early 20s, infact the average age to have your first kid in the UK is 29.
Listen if there is no generational gap between you and boomers, then you’re just a Gen X, mate. One generation to the next, no skipping.
Literally not how it works at all. Generations are defined on the year you were born, not who you were born to.
Mick Jagger was born in 1943, making him part of the Silent Generation. When his wife had their latest kid, in 2016, Jagger was 73. That child is not a baby boomer.
You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#List_of_named_generations
Do you know what the word Generation means? Literally in no other context is it defined that way, but you’re using Wikipedia as a source so clearly I don’t expect you to have any learning capacity at this point. Maybe you really are Gen Alpha at your mommy’s tablet.
Ok, I think this is just trolling at this point. No way someone can make this argument in good faith AND throw out that weak of an insult.
I think it was a banger insult, just enough not to seem unreasonable. If I wanted to alienate the opposition then discussion would very quickly become meaningless, like your comment for example: completely devoid of any relevant context, only an attack on my person.
By calling you young? That is not even insulting. I found the slight on Wikipedia more offensive.
Its like its totally impossible for a word to mean 2 slightly different things is different contexts.
Yeah if only we had some sort of non profit organization to run some sort of massive online wiki to keep this all straight for us.
I can’t believe you’re this confident about something so basic and somehow you’re wrong
Also, what, can’t win an argument without infantilizing your opponent? I mean it’s clear you know nothing about this topic and just assume you can “debate” about it using google or whatever, ironic coming from the guy who discounts wikipedia. That’s better than anything you’d know by a good margin anyways.
I can’t believe you’re this confident about something so basic and somehow you’re wrong
Wow really got me lmao
Like seriously? “Uhhh duhhh nuh uh, no you” is the best you could come up with? What are you, five?