I don’t think I’ve ever heard this. What is this referring to?
en.wikipedia.org
Few gave this a second thought in the '80s, and some considered it in the '90s, but as the turn of the century neared more started thinking about what we ought to call the '00s. William Safire's On Language column in The Times* is where I first considered it. He had two columns about it in 1989, one where he asked folks what they thought it should be called and another where he considered some of those responses. His tongue-in-cheek "working title" was the Zippy Zeros, à la the Roaring Twenties, but sadly it seems that never got any traction for some strange reason. His real suggestion was the Ohs, but I don't think I've actually heard anyone use that. I have heard the aughts and the aughties a time or three but they didn't really come into general use either. I think it's such an awkward phrase that English just doesn't have an actual term for, at least not currently.
There was a similar discussion about changing from "nineteen ninety nine" to "two thousand" and beyond. "The Year Two Thousand" was just so momentous that everyone said it that way, and then of course there's the movie
2001: A Space Odyssey so everyone said it as "two thousand and one" because that's what we'd been doing since it came out in 1968**. But then what about afterwards? Two thousand and two is a lot of syllables, and what the heck were we going to do when we got to two thousand and twenty seven, for example. A lot of people still say it as two thousand twenty one but I much prefer twenty twenty one. But that sounds much smoother than twenty oh four, for example, but once the '10s rolled around it got a lot easier.
So anyway, I go with the small numbers and say twenty twenty one. As we all should. And in another 75 years or so we can resume the discussion.
Sources (paywall warning):
www.nytimes.com
On Language column by Jack Rosenthal debates what to call decade that will begin with year 2000; suggests the Oh's; notes that informal spoken English is influencing E-mail writing, raising questions about whether standards of written English can be maintained; says so-called mondegreens...
www.nytimes.com
* I didn't much agree with his op-ed columns but one of the main reasons I got the Sunday Times was to read the On Language column in the magazine. And, you know, Section 2, for all the concert ads of course.
** I was only 8 or 9 at the time but my 17 or 18 year old sister and her had-to-be stoner bearded long-haired college DJ boyfriend took me to see it at the Ziegfeld where we watched it laying down on the floor in the front of the theater under the screen during the psychedelic light show section near the end. Apparently that was a thing because there were a good number of folks there with us too, and it was kind of mind-blowing. But all that's another story. (They also took me to my first concert too, when I was 12 or 13. It was Genesis, at their first American show at the then Philharmonic Hall. But all that's another another story.)
ETA: Oops, just realized that the 1999 column wasn't actually written by Safire, alas. Seems he was off that week or something.