this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
746 points (85.9% liked)

Political Memes

5431 readers
1369 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz 50 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Linnce@lemmy.world 60 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 66 points 1 week ago (2 children)

"Boomers are turning this country to shit!"

GenX:

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)
[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Wish this would be adjusted for age. Obviously someone who had more time to accumulate wealth will have more wealth. The real question is how much wealth does each generation have at the same age.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Then why Silent has so little?

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's extremely simple. How many people are alive born before 1946? Not many compared to the other generations. Their wealth went to their boomer children.

I am working off of one bar and have no electricity but this research has been done. I think pew has it, but it might be at ITAR

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It also matters at the time, as that's a form of power. Guess who can donate seriously to political campaigns, for example.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

True. Question is a bit how much wealth is in things and how much in money - some boomer owning a nice house and a vacation home is very wealthy, but might not necessarily have the liquidity to donate if they live on some relatively small pension.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Well this here GenXer wishes he could have some of that wealth. Unless 'have a mortgage' constitutes wealth.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Mortgage? No. Equity in a house? Yes.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Equity in a house is not all that helpful when the house is in an undesirable town in an undesirable state.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

My point is just that a mortgage is debt while equity is an asset, so I don't think you should consider a mortgage wealth.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Oh, I see. Yes, I agree.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It actually does. The amount paid off at least, since the property is the wealth.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Considering how little we're going to get back when we sell it within the next few months before fleeing to the UK, I would say that I don't think it's wealth.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Isn't the UK politics pretty similar to US?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In the sense that the UK isn't likely to force my queer daughter into a conversion camp in the near future, no.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I would say it's roughly equally likely

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Right, because Labour, (and the Tories and the Lib Dems) are all totally homophobic just like Republicans.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm just saying that I think this particular fear you have is roughly equally likely. Maybe the likelihood of it happening in the US is double or triple than the UK, but I think that would put the likelihood only from 0.01% to 0.03%, so basically the same.

Forcing queers (~8% of the population) in re-education camps would incite riots. They won't do it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Did you listen to the King's speech this year? I doubt it.

Did you know that the King's speech lays out government policy? I also doubt it.

Did you know that the King's speech this year included making conversion therapy illegal? I really doubt it.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., there's project 2025 and prominent republicans literally calling for trans genocide.

Forcing queers (~8% of the population) in re-education camps would incite riots. They won’t do it.

Yeah, remember how that happened in Germany in the 1930s when queer people were put in camps and then there was a big riot and they all got freed? No, neither do I.

Remember how it wasn't even legal to be queer in America until 2003? I do.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_history_in_the_United_States

You're picturing some movies instead of laws, police, prisons. Perhaps they'll take some inspiration from Putin: https://theconversation.com/putins-russia-first-arrests-under-new-anti-lgbt-laws-mark-new-era-of-repression-226864

These are the legal approaches. The other one is violent assholes murdering queers and then getting away with it somehow. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

You need to broaden your understanding of dystopian horizons.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 10 points 1 week ago

This is why I've been saying that we can't expect the population to simply age out of conservatism. If that worked, it would have happened generations ago. Perhaps as far back as "cooking food over fire is making kids these days weak".

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago

Well that shows a 47-49 split instead of the 42-53 split originally posted for 18-29 men.

Two points vs 11 points. Exit polls are still just polls, prone to some hefty ranges.