• @jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -33 months ago

    Family sizes are down, birth rates are now 1 per family, maybe 2 children.

    This is due to many reasons but mostly

    • Hormonal birth control
    • Women entering the mainstream labor pool

    Basically, there are better things for women to do then just have kids. This has a been a huge force multiplier for the economy

    However, this means that family lines, genetic lineage, family names, dynasties… All rests on the shoulders of a single child. That’s a lot of pressure.

    When you had 10 children, and one or two were “special”, it may have caused some drama but the lineage was still being secured by the other 8.

    When there is only one child who then chooses a alternative life style that does not reproduce that means the END of a genetic line, the end of a name, the end of a dynasty, the end of a family. These things are hugely important to people.

    I think people are more angry about sexual choices now, because they’re more important, because people have less children.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
    link
    fedilink
    53 months ago

    Michael Parenti addresses this well:

    Class gets its significance from the process of surplus extraction. The relationship between worker and owner is essentially an exploita­tive one, involving the constant transfer of wealth from those who labor (but do not own) to those who own (but do not labor). This is how some people get richer and richer without working, or with doing only a fraction of the work that enriches them, while others toil hard for an entire lifetime only to end up with little or nothing.

    Those who occupy the higher circles of wealth and power are keenly aware of their own interests. While they sometimes seriously differ among themselves on specific issues, they exhibit an impres­sive cohesion when it comes to protecting the existing class system of corporate power, property, privilege, and profit. At the same time, they are careful to discourage public awareness of the class power they wield. They avoid the C-word, especially when used in reference to themselves as in "owning class;’ "upper class;’ or “moneyed class.” And they like it least when the politically active elements of the owning class are called the “ruling class.” The ruling class in this country has labored long to leave the impression that it does not exist, does not own the lion’s share of just about everything, and does not exercise a vastly disproportionate influence over the affairs of the nation. Such precautions are them­selves symptomatic of an acute awareness of class interests.

    Yet ruling class members are far from invisible. Their command positions in the corporate world, their control of international finance and industry, their ownership of the major media, and their influence over state power and the political process are all matters of public record- to some limited degree. While it would seem a sim­ple matter to apply the C-word to those who occupy the highest reaches of the C-world, the dominant class ideology dismisses any such application as a lapse into “conspiracy theory.” The C-word is also taboo when applied to the millions who do the work of society for what are usually niggardly wages, the “working class,” a term that is dismissed as Marxist jargon. And it is verboten to refer to the "exploiting and exploited classes;’ for then one is talk­ing about the very essence of the capitalist system, the accumulation of corporate wealth at the expense of labor.

    The C-word is an acceptable term when prefaced with the sooth­ing adjective “middle.” Every politician, publicist, and pundit will rhapsodize about the middle class, the object of their heartfelt con­cern. The much admired and much pitied middle class is supposedly inhabited by virtuously self-sufficient people, free from the presumed profligacy of those who inhabit the lower rungs of soci­ety. By including almost everyone, “middle class” serves as a conve­niently amorphous concept that masks the exploitation and inequality of social relations. It is a class label that denies the actu­ality of class power.

    The C-word is allowable when applied to one other group, the desperate lot who live on the lowest rung of society, who get the least of everything while being regularly blamed for their own victimiza­tion: the “underclass.” References to the presumed deficiencies of underclass people are acceptable because they reinforce the existing social hierarchy and justify the unjust treatment accorded society’s most vulnerable elements.

    Seizing upon anything but class, leftists today have developed an array of identity groups centering around ethnic, gender, cultural, and life-style issues. These groups treat their respective grievances as something apart from class struggle, and have almost nothing to say about the increasingly harsh politico-economic class injustices perpe­trated against us all. Identity groups tend to emphasize their distinc­tiveness and their separateness from each other, thus fractionalizing the protest movement. To be sure, they have important contributions to make around issues that are particularly salient to them, issues often overlooked by others. But they also should not downplay their common interests, nor overlook the common class enemy they face. The forces that impose class injustice and economic exploitation are the same ones that propagate racism, sexism, militarism, ecological devastation, homophobia, xenophobia, and the like.

    source

  • @orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    433 months ago

    It’s not “all of a sudden”. And it’s not “the world”. And it’s not even “America”. Rather, you’re now consuming media that’s exposing you to thoughts that have always been around, often on the fringes.

    Remember, bigots have always existed, and polite bigots toe the line as much as they’re forced to. They aren’t going to disappear, ever. (That being said, we can make them less relevant and powerful.)

    • @TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      63 months ago

      exactly. and bigotry isn’t limited to sex or race stuff.

      people pretty much hate anyone who is different than them. even so called progressive inclusive hippie types… will express crazy bigotry towards groups they don’t like based on crude stereotypes that are largely not true.

      our brains love to generalize. They don’t like treating people who are different than us as worth our acknowledgement and esteem.

  • @Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    23 months ago

    It’s finally reaching such widespread acceptance that 1. Actual bigots are getting concerned they can’t be bad people anymore and 2. Assorted people are getting tired of the discourse.

      • @Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13 months ago

        I don’t think the site admins would be appreciative of my suggestion :^)

        In reality, forcing higher standards across the board raises the floor and can prevent enough bad behavior to be useful. Education and experience also encourage good behaviors. Basically, make it illegal to be a bigot, and let people learn why they don’t want to.

  • bizarroland
    link
    fedilink
    03 months ago

    Aside from what everyone else has said, one of the big leaders to this scenario is that the world has gotten so much safer and so much less violent and so much more accepting that people have to literally scrape the barrels to find something to be outraged about.

    We all of us know that the Republican playbook of taking rights away from people is a thing that is intended to target people and punish them for not adhering to the moral code of the people doing the targeting.

    But the fact that we can spend so much of our national resources on arguing over morality is a side effect of the world being so good that we don’t have to argue over worse things.

    I’m not attempting to apologize or forgive anybody for their stance, but it is true that we are arguing over whether or not it’s okay to have an abortion or whether or not it’s okay to be gay rather than whether it’s not okay to let have the country starve to death or whether or not it’s okay to kill everyone all the time always.

    I’ve said this before and I will inevitably say it again, human history is a pus filled boil on our consciences.

    The only way to fix it is to lance it and to deal with all of the pus. We are in the pus clean up stage of human history, and in time with enough constant patient care, it will get better.

  • @Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The internet has given global voice to people that would otherwise only be able to bounce those ideas back and forth across the barbershop floor

    • @eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      23 months ago

      there are a lot of barbershops and we would never have known how fucked up so many of them are w/o the internet.

  • caoimhinr
    link
    fedilink
    273 months ago

    Especially America? There are countries executing people for their sexual orientation.

    • Don_DickleOP
      link
      fedilink
      -33 months ago

      Well in america it seems to seems that people are theologically do things against LGBTQ and enacting them. The news we get and i preface this while knowing America is on the brink of it. That other countries or instutions are savages. Not my opinion but what we see daily.

      • Dae
        link
        fedilink
        53 months ago

        My guy, there are entire countries controlled by Islamic Extremists where you’re lucky if all they do is kill you when they find out you’re LGBT, and it’s entirely for “theological reasons.”

        I put this in quotes, because I’m not nor have I ever been a Muslim. But Islamic Extremists will kill gay people for supposed “theological reasons.”

        It’s most definitely not just America doing it because “mah holy book says it’s wrong.”

        • Don_DickleOP
          link
          fedilink
          03 months ago

          Like I said I am in America and all we see is how backwards other countries are on the topic. It just feels like America is now in the process of becoming one of them

  • Lem Jukes
    link
    fedilink
    83 months ago

    All of a sudden? Where have you been the last 80-100 years?

      • Lem Jukes
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Right, fuck, my bad. Welp, yeah, I’m sorry to say but I think it has more to do with your progression into understanding more about the world and perspectives outside of your own experience. In no way am I trying to be mean or discouraging. You asked a really valid and important question, and i guess i impulsively reacted and forgot there are people less jaded than me. For what it’s worth i admire you and hope that learning some people are STILL stuck being shitty doesn’t make you think everyone sucks. And I’m proud to learn that another person younger than me just ‘gets it’ that people are people deserving of love and respect regardless of bullshit like who they themselves love.

  • @s_s@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    63 months ago

    Why are people so interested in defining themselves along sexual identity and orientation in relatively recent western culture?

    Why now? Why is it so different from most of human existence?

    Because we are no longer facing famine. The Green Revolution has made our relationship with food so secure we no longer define ourselves in relation to it.

    Throughout most of history people are farmers or ranchers or shepherds or bakers or butchers or millers.

    So, we climb the Biological hierarchy of needs looking for our next characteristic that needs fulfillment.

    • @TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      not even. 1950s we had this idealized version that everyone was heterosexual, owned a home and had strict gender roles.

      That shit is now all blown apart. And for most folks the complexities of it all are beyond understanding.

      And it cuts both ways. I don’t care about other people’s genders and identities, but boy they care about mine. Gotten plenty of sexist slurs from queer/trans people based on my gender and lots of shitty assumptions. I’m bi, but I ‘present’ as a heterosexual dudebro, and it makes non-gender conforming people angry at me for some reason, also many insecure straight men and women. Only people who don’t seem to care are people who are bi, or secure in their sexuality. Way too many people feel the need to do that though.

    • Jojo, Lady of the West
      link
      fedilink
      43 months ago

      I’d just like to say that I’m not defining myself at any point, I’m describing myself.

      A trivial point, maybe, but there’s still plenty of bigots around and the ones around me use phrases like “defining yourself” to minimize and erase lbgtq+ people’s experiences.

      • @s_s@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        23 months ago

        Identifying might be the best word to use, given the psychology literature all tends to use that, but thank you for your critique.

        • Jojo, Lady of the West
          link
          fedilink
          13 months ago

          Also heavily under fire, though the arguments are usually paper thin. They dismiss self-identification under the pretense that it’s not about identity, that your identity can’t be that you’re trans or whatever. Just a fiat argument.

        • Jojo, Lady of the West
          link
          fedilink
          13 months ago

          And I’d just like to add: you’re right, this is the way the literature talks about it. You’d think the term being used clinically - with a clear, concise, and well-defined meaning - would mean it couldn’t be targeted and attacked the way it is by the religious right. You’d think, you’d hope, and you’d be wrong. And that sucks.

  • @chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    37
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    According to the GSS, only 10% of Americans reaponded “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” to the statement “Homosexuals should have the right to marry” in 1988 (first year the question was asked).

    In 2004, it was 30%.

    In 2022 it was 67%.

    Also according to the GSS, 40 years ago a third of Americans thought homosexuals shouldn’t have the right to speak.

    We’ve made remarkable progress in a very short period.

    • Don_DickleOP
      link
      fedilink
      23 months ago

      Is that why I had to fly to a different state to marry my gf instead of my home state who does not recognize same sex marriages?

          • @chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            133 months ago

            In this case it is. All 50 states are required to perform gay marriages as of June 26th, 2015. The ruling took immediate effect nationwide. Clerks were having to hand-edit marriage licenses to allow for same-sex certificates because within an hour of the ruling people were showing up at courthouses to get married in states where it had been illegal.

            Churches aren’t required to perform same-sex marriages nationwide, however.

    • @ChaoticGoodHeart@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      163 months ago

      Yeah, trans people are just new targets. DOMA wasn’t that long ago, but regressives lost the battle against gay people, so trans people are just the next rung on the hate ladder for them.

  • @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    18
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Because social media amplifies and incentivises minority, hateful views to make it seem like everyone is concerned about these things.

    The reality is, it’s the same small group of hateful idiots who are always in the spotlight.

    In real life, even in small towns, people either don’t care or they celebrate how far we’ve come as a society.

    • @Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      53 months ago

      Well to be fair a lot of those politicians aren’t in the 1%, they just want to be. And they’re more than happy to toe the party line and step on everyone they can in order to get to the top. And then there’s the true believers, but let’s be honest anybody who’s a true believer or anything is crazy.

  • southsamurai
    link
    fedilink
    533 months ago

    You’ve gotten enough good answers that I think it okay to address a tangent.

    Things are definitely at the point where christofascists, and other hate driven ideologies are getting louder.

    But, and this is vitally important as to why the pushback is making it a matter of public discourse at the level you’re asking about, there’s more allies now than ever.

    Be ready for old man talking here, and ignore if not interested. Disclaimer: I have arthritis, and it’s easier to type gay than LGBTQ, so I’ll be using the shorter word for that reason, not as an exclusion.

    Back in the seventies and eighties, gay rights was a thing for mostly gay people. Before that it had been gaining minor support, and the eighties were when social restrictions started changing enough that gay people were allowed to have some degree of public awareness in both news and fiction.

    I keep bringing it up in various places, but Billy Crystal played the first recurring openly gay character on television. That was in 1977, and ran until 1981. I don’t think it can be said enough how huge that was in bringing awareness of gay people as just people was. That role brought gay into our homes and lives in a way nothing had before.

    When something makes a group real to the majority, makes things stop being a dirty secret and just another part of life, you get kids growing up that are more open and accepting. As acceptance grew, so did the amount of people coming out.

    As people came out, the straights realized that not only had they always known gay people, but they liked them, and even loved them for years, sometimes a lifetime. When that starts spreading, you have more people that are willing to support gay people and their rights as fellow humans.

    Instead of being pariahs, gay people became part of life, part of our hearts. Eventually, more and more people that didn’t have direct relationships with someone gay became allies, supporters.

    However, the more gay people became a part of life, the more noise bigots made, in their own homes and in public. So, instead of it being a dirty little secret nobody talked about, that way of thinking got nastier and louder. Before, it wasn’t something everyone would even know about until much later in life, but as the gay rights movement in the seventies started building up steam, you had more hatred being spewed as well. There had been before, but it was more likely to be handled with dismissive or contemptuous remarks rather than outright venom and bile in the open.

    Now, us folks that were kids during the late 70s and early 80s didn’t just accept gay folks. We would often defy elders that opposed gay rights or bad talked them. As time passed and we grew up, the segment of that generation that became allies tended to be more and more vocal in our support. By the nineties, my generation was moving into adulthood and willing to vote our conscience. We were willing to put our time and money into the cause. Sometimes, we’d put our bodies on the line when things got ugly.

    Move forward to now, and you’ve got two or three generations actively and loudly opposing the bigots, and not just the gay people. The bigots are smaller in number, but have been pandered to by political groups around the world, so have more weight than their numbers should give them.

    Mind you, the bigots also include people of every generation too. Don’t imagine that there aren’t kids even that spew the same kind of nastiness that’s been used since before the 70s. But there’s more in direct opposition to them, and plenty of passive dismissal of the bigotry. Bigotry is not a relic of the past, nor is it limited to older generations; some of the loudest and most obnoxious hatred gets spewed by younger adherents. But the seeming percentage of hate is lower in younger generations, and the seeming percentage of outright support is higher.

    That puts us in the situation we’re in, where hate has a bigger voice than it should, and love/acceptance has to shout louder to oppose it.

    • Tar_Alcaran
      link
      fedilink
      73 months ago

      A little late-80s perspective: when I was growing up, “gay” was an insult we’d call eachother jokingly. Nobody “was gay” because that’s a (light, funny) slur. Hell, it wasn’t till I was 28 I realized it didn’t “have a dating-girls phase” that I never grew out of, I was just bi.

      The homophobia is still pretty deeply ingrained even in people who aren’t that old and are really trying. I can only imagine how bad it is for those who aren’t and don’t.

      • @shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13 months ago

        I still have a hard time digesting “gay” as a slur. We simply didn’t use it that way, ever. F@g could go both ways and my gay friends happily slung it at each other. An attempt to take the word back from the haters I guess. At least that word was sometimes used as a real insult.

    • Track_Shovel
      link
      fedilink
      English
      163 months ago

      Hey.

      I really enjoyed your comment. It’s very well written. Nice job. That’s it; that’s all.

    • @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      113 months ago

      Things are definitely at the point where christofascists, and other hate driven ideologies are getting louder.

      Good time to bring up how their numbers are drastically thinning. This is a big win and part of why we need to fight them hard as their fear of marginalization causes them to switch from dirty tactics to outright fascism to cling to power.

      Survey: White Christianity is declining while the religiously unaffiliated keep growing

      • @TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        63 months ago

        they are popular because they provide simple answers to complex issues.

        People like that. Esp younger folks.

        Just like the alt right is so popular with them, because it gives them simple answers.

        Left doesn’t have simple answers. Wants you to listen to a college course type of lecture on every issue… people don’t care about that. They want a simple soundbyte they can emotionally respond to. Left is very poor at that… there are some examples, but they dont’ really get much traction outside of leftist/socialist circles.

        • @VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          13 months ago

          Also you can spend thirty seconds as a right winger and have them all tell you that you’re great, important, clever, worthwhile, and all those things – spend twenty years dedicating your adult life to leftwing values and you’ll still get spat on by your political peers because your opinion on some obscure issue is 2% different to theirs.

      • @octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That bump in 2020 is kind of interesting. The reason seems obvious, but correlation does not equal causation and all that. It does make me wonder if a big chunk of people claiming to be unaffilated are doing so because they think it’s the correct answer to give, not because it’s actually true. (My theory being that the pandemic made them decide they better stop denying Jesus for awhile or whatever)

        • @fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          53 months ago

          Religion is an opiate. The best way to reduce its abuse is by addressing the underlying pain. When people conditions get worse they look to things to help numb the pain.

    • @tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      83 months ago

      it really feels like it’s at a boiling point though right now. World governments have all shifted more to the right on average than they have in the last 80 years.

      • @TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Because the right offers people stability, authority, etc. People like that.

        They don’t like left because it’s too vague and complicated to understand their points of view.

        Trans people = bad is a lot easier for the average person to understand, than explaining to them what a transsexual person is and isn’t, and the various types of trans/queer identities. That shit requires a dictionary and hours of time to understand.

      • @ganymede@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        43 months ago

        governments have all shifted more to the right on average

        it appears to be the case. though afaict none of it appears to be organic.

      • @MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        33 months ago

        There’s been some surprising upsets recently though! We were all bracing for a fashy-wave but lots of progressive leaders have been elected lately, after it looked like their hardline iron-fist nationlist counterparts were gaining ground.

        By no means a reason to take it easy and give them a breather, oh no! But we should definitely acknowledge every little bit of dystopia we manage to collectively avert. Even if only a little.

        • @eldavi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          23 months ago

          the fashy-waves were manifested by centrists leaders that we learned were very fashy-friendly after those upsets made those leaders intrigue with the far right; as is happening in france with macron; or clinging on to conservative policies; as is happening in the uk with starmer.

          the people voted left; but all of the leaders went right anyways.

          harris and trump are doing something similar with harris ignoring the will of 68% of americans when with comes to the genocide and trump with project 2025.

  • @pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    363 months ago

    these things come up whenever the right wing needs a distraction. they have to keep finding new groups to blame society’s ills on, so that conservatives don’t realize it’s their politics that lead to those.

    whenever a group inevitably becomes too accepted (or at least not feared enough) to be a distraction, they move on to the next group. sometimes they bring an oldie back because that’s fashion for you.

    • @demesisx@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      If that were the case, the Dems could just stand up and say, “You and I both know that those aren’t even issues. They are open and shut case of right vs. wrong. Here are the issues that actually matter to people on both sides of the political spectrum:

      • stop sending our tax money to bomb people
      • give us Single Payer
      • break up monopolies
      • make it possible to afford a home
      • make college education free
      • increase wages
      • help labor
      • etc”

      and they would win in a landslide (if elections were even fair in the first place).

      But they don’t because they know that it allows them to give the donors (who are considered PEOPLE with ability to funnel ANY amount of money to a candidate because of Citizens United) what they want (more money) while doing ANYTHING to distinguish themselves to their sheeplike electorate.