Complex Numbers

Revisited: "Millennials Killed Millennials"

It's time for another foray into the jungles of the past. This one comes from way back in 2018—Christmas Eve, to be exact: "Millennials Killed Millennials" 

The entry featured an article from The Atlantic; this was before I started using xlink tags for articles, so it's a raw URL link. That source has changed its policy since then, and every time I open it now, I hit a paywall.

I'm not above paying to read or watch something. I have a few subscriptions. But even I can't subscribe to (or keep up with) everything and, more importantly, I try not to link paywalled articles here (as I said, that entry from 2018 was from before they installed a paywall).

Point is, unless you subscribe to The Atlantic or have found some way around the paywall that even I haven't been able to figure out, you're only going to get the first few paragraphs of the original story. Oh, sure, it talks about "subscribe" and "free trial," but I'm deeply suspicious of any "free trial."

You'd think they'd lift that restriction for older articles, but apparently not.

Not ragging on them, by the way. They should be able to make money if their content is useful. I used to link a bunch of their stuff, and I'm not judging anyone who subscribes. I'm just explaining why 1) I don't feature Atlantic articles anymore and 2) today's entry is more about my earlier entry than it is about the original article.

Having said that, let's look at what I was thinking six years ago this month.

The entire concept of demographic "generations" annoys the shit out of me. And it only gets worse as time goes on and I read more crap like this.

I've since moderated my feelings about that topic. As with most other things, it's not binary; I'm not obliged to either love it or hate it, with nothing in between. My stance on the practice is complicated, but I'll try to explain my current thoughts:

1. Yes, the "generation" labels are pretty arbitrary. So are Gregorian calendar months, but it's an established system that has its uses.

2. In this system, I'm early Generation X, which hardly anyone ever talks about, opting instead to rag on "boomers" or "millennials" or "Gen-Z." Or praise them, depending on the author's beliefs and age.

2a. Gen-X is supposed to be, among other things, the slacker generation. Am I a slacker because I was born under the Slacker sign, and therefore it's expected of me; or is it just my basic nature?

3. It's one thing to draw conclusions about a subgroup and market to that subgroup. It's quite another to point at a single individual from that subgroup and simply assume that they have all the traits associated with that subgroup. I don't really have a problem with the former, at least not anymore.

There's more, but I'm not writing a dissertation, here; what I'm really trying to say is that my own views have shifted over the years.

On top of which, you'd have to convince me that our 1983-born X-er has more in common with someone born in 1966 than with someone born in 1986.

That is something that no one has been able to convince me of, yet. Some people have tried to get around it by slicing generations more finely; you get, like, the "Oregon Trail generation," which of course refers to the classic "you have died of dysentery" computer game and not actual westward-ho pioneers. But all that does is support my point: slice finely enough, and you're back to taking each person individually, rendering the whole marketing concept more useless.

Also, some things suck and other things get better. This is due not to a single "generation" or cadre of ages, but every single person doing his or her own thing.

I'm not sure exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that, but I recognize it's probably unclear. Much of what sets "generations" apart, in modern terms, has to do with technological advancements and societal changes, all of which require more than one person. Like, someone had to invent Crocs, sure, but also, someone had to be convinced that they're not ugly and to start wearing them. And then other people had to think that the original wearer was cool enough to start a fashion trend.

I'm pretty sure the whole "generations" thing is just another way to divide us, like politics or countries. It distracts us from the real issues, which we can either work to solve, or ignore, depending on one's individual preference.

Again, my hardline stance on that has evolved, though I still have a measure of distrust. These days, for instance, the popular usage of "boomer" and "millennial" doesn't comport with their marketing definitions; a "boomer" is simply someone older than you whose attitude you don't like; and a "millennial" is someone younger than you whose attitude you don't like. This is one reason Gen-X gets ignored (but don't worry; we're used to it).

But it is marketing. Not science.

So you know what I want to see Millennials finally kill?

Generations.

This harks back to the original article, which was apparently about the Millennial generation killing off cultural institutions beloved by Boomers. Never mind that these same Boomers killed off cultural institutions beloved by their parents' generation.

Anyway. Changed perspective or not, that entry's still there, even if accessing its linked article remains a pain in the ass. But, to borrow the rallying cry of my generation: "Whatever."