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 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.
There’s not much point in doing that. Like I said, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and it’s just an argument of which definition is best to use, so it’s not really much of a debate. TL;DR: Not interested.
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.
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.
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?
Come up with an argument and maybe I’ll bother writing a response.
There’s not much point in doing that. Like I said, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and it’s just an argument of which definition is best to use, so it’s not really much of a debate. TL;DR: Not interested.
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.
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.
If only that organization had a citation method at the bottom of every page where anybody with half a brain could find actual sources.
Yes, clearly your clear misunderstanding of a topic must be because people are not providing primary sources…
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.
For real, wikipedia is the best
lmao