"No True Scotsman" Fallacy - You're not a Millennial if you don't remember 9/11
When it comes to defining the cutoff boundary between the Millennials and the Plurals, the criteria that tends to come up the most is memory of 9/11. As a matter of fact, Pew bases their definition of the Millennials ending in 1996 and the Plurals starting in 1997 around this very criteria.
Now, I'm not all all offended by Pew's definitions. I may not agree with them, but I'm not bothered or offended by them. I consider myself a Millennial, but I'm not offended if anyone considers me part of the Plural generation. However, I do feel this topic at hand is worth bringing up, because I feel too many people within the GenDec (generationology and decadeology) community get caught up in subjective notions they take as objective truths.
Now, Pew's model I mentioned previously is the most ubiquitous model, and many are taking this model to be factual because of it, that any other model is inaccurate because it isn't as ubiquitous as Pew's.
Also, the whole rule that you have to remember 9/11 in order to be a Millennial is also a ubiquitous rule, as I already mentioned. Many individuals within the GenDec community on this site as well as on Reddit, inthe00s, and YouTube treat it like conventional wisdom that you have to remember 9/11 to be a Millennial, and that any source that does not go by this rule is not an accurate source because it does not follow this rule.
So you got three notions here;
A: No source that doesn't use Pew's definition is an accurate source, because Pew's is the most ubiquitous.
B: You can't be a Millennial if you don't remember 9/11. (The "Remember 9/11" rule itself)
C: No source that doesn't use the "Remember 9/11" rule is an accurate source, because that rule is the most ubiquitous.
All three of these notions however are examples of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
The "No True Scotsman" fallacy occurs when an individual tries to dismiss an exception to an argument or general rule they follow just because that exception is not "pure" enough, making an appeal to purity to defend against criticisms towards or flaws against the argument or general rule they follow. Here's an example;
![]()
No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!
![]()
But my Uncle Angus puts sugar on his porridge all the time!
![]()
Aye, but no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!
So how are the three aforementioned notions examples of this fallacy?
Notion A is an example because many individuals within the GenDec community that follow Pew's model as an objective truth are using the source's ubiquity as an appeal to purity. It is important to note that ubiquity by no means is a basis for objectivity. The vast majority of the planet will ubiquitously agree that a mango tastes better than a pinecone, yet the notion of mangoes tasting better than pinecones is still a subjective opinion, not an objective truth.
Notion B is an example because it follows the notion that 9/11's impact on Millennials was so ubiquitous that it seems objective that you must remember the event in order to be a Millennial. Once again, they are using ubiquity to back up their appeal to purify their notion and make it seem objective that you must remember 9/11 in order to be a Millennial.
Truth is, though, the notion of Millennials being so ubiquitously impacted by 9/11 isn't even true. The US only contains about 327 million of the 7.5 billion people living on the planet, and 13.6% of that 327 million is foreign born. Sure, 9/11 made headlines worldwide, but it didn't have the same sociological impact as in the US, since most of these countries have been dealing with tragedies like or even worse than 9/11 beforehand. Not only that, but 9/11 would not have had the same impact as one who just simply remembers it as it would to someone who not only remembers it, but also either lived in New York or DC at the time, lost a family member in the attacks, had a family member serve in the war following the attacks, or all three. This is especially true if you were in single digits at the time and too young to understand the full political and sociological impact of the event. Also, memory is a subjective criteria, some people can remember back to infancy, others can't even remember yesterday. I know individuals born in 1998 who remember the event, as well as individuals born in 1996 who don't. Should the former count as Millennials and the latter as Plurals, despite the former being younger?
Notion C ties in with both notions A and B. Individuals that follow this notion are caught up in the thought that 9/11's impact on Millennials is so ubiquitous that anyone who doesn't remember the event should not be considered a Millennial, and that sources that use the 9/11 cutoff are so ubiquitous that sources that don't use that rule shouldn't be counted as accurate sources. Once again, this is being done to appeal to purity to invalidate any opposing argument.
Granted, generations are not a topic that deserve lengthy argument in the first place as they are just a subjective manmade idea and not an objective divine law, but for those that are interested in the topic regardless, these points I made should be taken to heart, as too many people within the GenDec community have subjective notions purified in their minds as objective truths.
If you disagree with these points made or thought they were redundant, that's fine. If you agreed, let me know in the comments below, and any additional points you would like to make.
When it comes to defining the cutoff boundary between the Millennials and the Plurals, the criteria that tends to come up the most is memory of 9/11. As a matter of fact, Pew bases their definition of the Millennials ending in 1996 and the Plurals starting in 1997 around this very criteria.
Now, I'm not all all offended by Pew's definitions. I may not agree with them, but I'm not bothered or offended by them. I consider myself a Millennial, but I'm not offended if anyone considers me part of the Plural generation. However, I do feel this topic at hand is worth bringing up, because I feel too many people within the GenDec (generationology and decadeology) community get caught up in subjective notions they take as objective truths.
Now, Pew's model I mentioned previously is the most ubiquitous model, and many are taking this model to be factual because of it, that any other model is inaccurate because it isn't as ubiquitous as Pew's.
Also, the whole rule that you have to remember 9/11 in order to be a Millennial is also a ubiquitous rule, as I already mentioned. Many individuals within the GenDec community on this site as well as on Reddit, inthe00s, and YouTube treat it like conventional wisdom that you have to remember 9/11 to be a Millennial, and that any source that does not go by this rule is not an accurate source because it does not follow this rule.
So you got three notions here;
A: No source that doesn't use Pew's definition is an accurate source, because Pew's is the most ubiquitous.
B: You can't be a Millennial if you don't remember 9/11. (The "Remember 9/11" rule itself)
C: No source that doesn't use the "Remember 9/11" rule is an accurate source, because that rule is the most ubiquitous.
All three of these notions however are examples of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
The "No True Scotsman" fallacy occurs when an individual tries to dismiss an exception to an argument or general rule they follow just because that exception is not "pure" enough, making an appeal to purity to defend against criticisms towards or flaws against the argument or general rule they follow. Here's an example;
So how are the three aforementioned notions examples of this fallacy?
Notion A is an example because many individuals within the GenDec community that follow Pew's model as an objective truth are using the source's ubiquity as an appeal to purity. It is important to note that ubiquity by no means is a basis for objectivity. The vast majority of the planet will ubiquitously agree that a mango tastes better than a pinecone, yet the notion of mangoes tasting better than pinecones is still a subjective opinion, not an objective truth.
Notion B is an example because it follows the notion that 9/11's impact on Millennials was so ubiquitous that it seems objective that you must remember the event in order to be a Millennial. Once again, they are using ubiquity to back up their appeal to purify their notion and make it seem objective that you must remember 9/11 in order to be a Millennial.
Truth is, though, the notion of Millennials being so ubiquitously impacted by 9/11 isn't even true. The US only contains about 327 million of the 7.5 billion people living on the planet, and 13.6% of that 327 million is foreign born. Sure, 9/11 made headlines worldwide, but it didn't have the same sociological impact as in the US, since most of these countries have been dealing with tragedies like or even worse than 9/11 beforehand. Not only that, but 9/11 would not have had the same impact as one who just simply remembers it as it would to someone who not only remembers it, but also either lived in New York or DC at the time, lost a family member in the attacks, had a family member serve in the war following the attacks, or all three. This is especially true if you were in single digits at the time and too young to understand the full political and sociological impact of the event. Also, memory is a subjective criteria, some people can remember back to infancy, others can't even remember yesterday. I know individuals born in 1998 who remember the event, as well as individuals born in 1996 who don't. Should the former count as Millennials and the latter as Plurals, despite the former being younger?
Notion C ties in with both notions A and B. Individuals that follow this notion are caught up in the thought that 9/11's impact on Millennials is so ubiquitous that anyone who doesn't remember the event should not be considered a Millennial, and that sources that use the 9/11 cutoff are so ubiquitous that sources that don't use that rule shouldn't be counted as accurate sources. Once again, this is being done to appeal to purity to invalidate any opposing argument.
Granted, generations are not a topic that deserve lengthy argument in the first place as they are just a subjective manmade idea and not an objective divine law, but for those that are interested in the topic regardless, these points I made should be taken to heart, as too many people within the GenDec community have subjective notions purified in their minds as objective truths.
If you disagree with these points made or thought they were redundant, that's fine. If you agreed, let me know in the comments below, and any additional points you would like to make.
I've sent you the PM, btw. 
