I was watching CNN again the other night and they had some Republican guy on the panel who admitted this, when they asked him about the “DEI Candidate” talk he said it was unfortunate and a bad idea but that the language had been monetized on social media so everyone’s been trained to say it.
I’m amused with all the people who think there’s some hard line where you have to be born before or after some exact year to be of a named generation as if this wasn’t all made up. A baby didn’t get labeled Gen-X if they were born after midnight on a certain day.
As far as I’m concerned, she’s Gen-X. She was 13 when Star Wars came out.
Maybe I am missing something but you do have to be born before or after some exact year to be of a named generation. That’s kind of the definition. Gen X is 1965 - 1980.
Dude, it’s all made up and there is no hard definition for the years of Gen X.
I mean if you really want to be pedantic about it, the people we call Boomers these days are the original Gen X.
The term Generation X has been used at various times to describe alienated youth. In the early 1950s, Hungarian photographer Robert Capa first used Generation X as the title for a photo-essay about young men and women growing up immediately following World War II. The term first appeared in print in a December 1952 issue of Holiday magazine announcing their upcoming publication of Capa’s photo-essay.
Or maybe it’s people born in the 1950s and 1960s?
The term acquired a modern application after the release of Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture, a 1991 novel written by Canadian author Douglas Coupland; however, the definition used there is “born in the late 1950s and 1960s”, which is about ten years earlier than definitions that came later.[16][17][13][18] In 1987, Coupland had written a piece in Vancouver Magazine titled “Generation X” which was “the seed of what went on to become the book”.
Or maybe it’s 1965-1980?
In the U.S., the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan think-tank, delineates a Generation X period of 1965–1980 which has, albeit gradually, come to gain acceptance in academic circles.
Or maybe it’s “Gen X is whatever we decide it is.”
The Brookings Institution, another U.S. think-tank, sets the Gen X period as between 1965 and 1981.[31] The U.S. Federal Reserve Board uses 1965–1980 to define Gen X.[32] The U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) defines the years for Gen X as between 1964 and 1979. The US Department of Defense (DoD), conversely, use dates 1965 to 1977.[33] In their 2002 book When Generations Collide, Lynne Lancaster and David Stillman use 1965 to 1980, while in 2012 authors Jain and Pant also used parameters of 1965 to 1980.[34] U.S. news outlets such as The New York Times[35][36] and The Washington Post[37] describe Generation X as people born between 1965 and 1980. Gallup,[38] Bloomberg,[39] Business Insider,[40] and Forbes[41][42] use 1965–1980. Time magazine states that Generation X is “roughly defined as anyone born between 1965 and 1980”.[43] George Masnick of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies puts this generation in the time-frame of 1965 to 1984, in order to satisfy the premise that boomers, Xers, and millennials “cover equal 20-year age spans”.[44]
In Australia, the McCrindle Research Center uses 1965–1979.[45] In the UK, the Resolution Foundation think-tank defines Gen X as those born between 1966 and 1980.[46] PricewaterhouseCoopers, a multinational professional services network headquartered in London, describes Generation X employees as those born from 1965 to 1980.[47]
But those are just think tanks. Surely other experts have a specific range, right?
On the basis of the time it takes for a generation to mature, U.S. authors William Strauss and Neil Howe define Generation X as those born between 1961 and 1981 in their 1991 book titled Generations, and differentiate the cohort into an early and late wave.[48] Jeff Gordinier, in his 2008 book X Saves the World, include those born between 1961 and 1977 but possibly as late as 1980.[9] George Masnick of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies puts this generation in the time-frame of 1965 to 1984, in order to satisfy the premise that boomers, Xers, and millennials “cover equal 20-year age spans”.[44] In 2004, journalist J. Markert also acknowledged the 20-year increments but goes one step further and subdivides the generation into two 10-year cohorts with early and later members of the generation. The first begins in 1966 and ends in 1975 and the second begins in 1976 and ends in 1985; this thinking is applied to each generation (Silent, boomers, Gen X, millennials, etc.).[49]
I just showed you my point quite well. That there’s no agreed-upon definition of the term like you suggested. All I can think is that you read nothing I pasted.
No, I didn’t suggest that. I asked for clarification because you said it amused you that people thought being born before or after some year made you part of a generation. That is literally the fucking definition! There are certainly different definitions of those generations but regardless they are all based on a person being born before or after a certain year.
Yes, they are defined by a span of years. An arbitrary span no one agrees on. Thus, Generation X not definitively 1965-1980 as you said. Even the U.S. government disagrees with that definition.
It’s anything from the late 1920s to the mid 1980s depending on who you ask.
So you are saying it’s arbitrary and then in the very next sentence make the statement that it is defined as 1920 - 1980? Do you even know what you are trying to say at this point?
I’m reading just fine thank you. “Gen X is anything from 1965 to 1980.” What is the difference between that and what you said? Just the date range. It’s obvious this concept is just too much for your brain to handle or you are just being stubborn. No need to message me anymore.
Generational cohorts are all just made up nonsense. It just exists to distract the working class from what we have in common with each other and what separates us from the working class. I, a millennial, have much more in common with a working class baby boomer, than I do with a rich and powerful millennial.
Stop encouraging these artificial divides. Build solidarity across the working class of all ages. And stop playing into the media’s narratives.
I think you’re conflating two different things. There are a variety of social factors that affect age cohorts differently, and a lot of that comes down to the experience during formative years. We are a product of our environment in many ways, and it’s not nonsense to study and opine on these shared experiences and how they shape us. Class solidarity is an entirely different subject. You likely do have more in common with your social class across generations, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have anything in common with wealthy millennials. I wouldn’t let lazy journalism own the concept of generations itself.
The lived experience of people differs as much, or more, within age cohorts, as it does between age cohorts. They are lazy and hasty generalisations, with very little benefit outside of garbage op-eds and zombie statistics.
Good. The uglier they get, the more people will be turned off. Plenty of people who are racist but don’t consider themselves to be racist do not like the overt racists.
My dad is almost one of the the people FlyingSquid talking about; he’s a Democrat and kind of racist, but he doesn’t see himself as a racist. Someone like a more Republican version of my dad might be persuaded to vote for Harris, or at least not vote for Trump, if the Trump campaign gets too nasty.
Don’t forget that magats aren’t the only people who would potentially vote for Trump; a lot of people are swing voters who, for some reason, have a hard time deciding who to vote for. Neither candidate can win without appealing to a majority of those voters.
Yep. My grandmother, born in the first decade of the 20th century, had some pretty racist ideas. But when she lived in the UK, she always voted Labour and when she emigrated to the U.S. and became a citizen, she always voted Democrat. And she died before Obama was elected, but I have no doubt she would have voted for Obama even if she had pretty obvious racist issues with her black next-door neighbor.
Reminds me of the story going around during the 2008 election about the canvasser in the south being told by a white person, “we’re voting for the n-!”
Reminds me of the story going around during the 2008 election about the canvasser in the south being told by a white person, "we're voting for the n-!"
I have family that are similar. I wouldn’t classify them as racist, but they straddle that line with opinions. I’ve never seen or heard them classify an entire group of people or act discriminatory in person. It is more along the lines of “everyone is equal and nobody should get special treatment” regarding things like affirmative action or the more extreme DEI practices of some companies.
My experience is such that these people can be reached if we keep the lines of communication open rather than do the easy thing of cutting them off. I’ve been able to use their own logic and verbiage (especially verbiage) against them but one can’t go in guns blazing. To change minds, it must feel like their idea. Turn the heat up slowly and introduce doubt and ideas.
My big take away, with people like I described above, is that they are reacting to the more extreme people who would feel right at home in the racist far right if things were just a tad different. Cultural warriors and grievance politics leaders are cancerous regardless of which side of the spectrum they occupy because their goal remains the same: divide the normal people and turn us against each other.
And judging by what happens in my extended family and how it is breaking down on political lines… it is sadly working.
Despite what many believe on Lemmy, there are also people who only vote Republican for financial reasons and try to ignore the racism and bigotry of the party. I personally know a few that intend to abstain in the fall now.
Good, because that is fucking bullshit. Imagine if there was a “black panic defense” where someone claimed that they lost control violently because a black person made a pass at them?
Or even better(?) a “white panic defence” for non-whites (hold for crowd’s audible gasp). The fact someone came up with that garbage is yet another example of how absurd it is getting over there.
The comparison is that the cops are using something about the person to be an excuse for violently panicking. Not literally the same thing, but the same kind of fear based on who the person is.
That’s where they got the “xyz panic defense” from!
“The Big Scary Black Man™️ got on the elevator with me! I had to mace him because he said HeLlO”
(Yeah. That was my security guard. He was in uniform, starting his shift and you just maxed him for starting his rounds.)(fortunately it was that cheap pink pepper spray that- for the record- can’t stop any one for shit. It’s just… irritating.)
I have to admit that I was confused by the meaning of this “panic defense”. The following from the article helped a bit.
At the September hearing, Pohutsky said “the LGBTQ panic defense is often deployed as a component of other defenses to play on the unfortunate prejudices of some judges and juries in an effort to mitigate penalties for these crimes.”
But a linked article made this “defense” tactic even more clear.
Gay rights advocates are outraged after an Austin, Texas, man received a light sentence for stabbing his neighbor to death in what some are calling an example of the so-called gay panic defense.
For decades, the rare defense has allowed a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity to justify violent crime in some cases. Now, advocates are saying it should be banned.
I’m honestly surprised that this was ever admissable in the first place. Well, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
This is good for the people of Michigan and the other 19 states that ban it. May all US states follow in kind.
Basically, from my understanding, the idea was that it wasn’t a defense in the sense of the person saying they were innocent. The defense was in claiming that an assult/murder was not premeditated, hence the “panic”.
Thanks for posting this but I’m not sure I understand it.
What if it was a material part of the case? In the article linked, it wasn’t even “gay panic” as much as self defence that started from an unaccepted gay advance that turned into a fight.
For example, what if two people went home from a bar preparing to hook up, then one discovered the other wasn’t the biological gender/sex they expected. It gets heated and they fight. The gay or trans person receives the worst of it. Police get called.
Can you not include that as a part of the defense?
Is that what they are calling gay/trans panic?
This seems weird to me because in court you should be allowed to admit facts and evidence. If one of the parties was gay or trans, and that played a role in the event, it seems wrong to not allow it as it’s very relevant.
The gay panic defense or homosexual advance defence is a victim blaming strategy of legal defense, which refers to a situation in which a heterosexual individual charged with a violent crime against a homosexual (or bisexual) individual claims they lost control and reacted violently because of an unwanted sexual advance that was made upon them. A defendant will use available legal defenses against assault and murder, with the aim of seeking an acquittal, a mitigated sentence, or a conviction of a lesser offense. A defendant may allege to have found the same-sex sexual advances so offensive or frightening that they were provoked into reacting, were acting in self-defense, were of diminished capacity, or were temporarily insane, and that this circumstance is exculpatory or mitigating.
This has no bearing on the admitted facts or evidence. The goal is to prevent the defense from basically saying, “They deserved it because they were gay/trans, and that surprised/scared me so much I acted violently.” It’s like saying you punched someone because they were wearing a different colored shirt. It’s not okay to hurt someone because of who they are.
The law was passed to prevent victim blame and to make it clear that being gay/trans isnt scary. People are people. And violence isn’t okay, even if one’s bigotry causes them act irrationally.
EDIT: Updated to simplify what I was trying to convey
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.