top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 60 points 3 months ago (1 child)

I want better world for children but I'm not bringing any into this hell hole.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 52 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 26 points 3 months ago

    I work in hospice, and was recently made aware of a child who was contacted as their parent's emergency contact (parent in the hospital signing into hospice, but rapidly deteriorating.) She said she'd sign papers if needed to make sure her parent didn't end up on the street, but otherwise wasn't interested in updates/contact till her parent passed.

    There's many flavors of ways this will come back to bite people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 97 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The "fuck you, I got mine" generation.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 198 points 3 months ago (43 children)

    Yeah not too far off. The post WW2 generation are the most successful ladder pullers of all time.

  • source
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 97 points 3 months ago (25 children)

    At this point I'm genuinely considering the only way to convince them to put the ladder back down is to ask them if they want more than 1/10 of their retirement care nurses to be white.

    Similar to how I think the only real solution to MAGA is to start a psyopp that all citrus fruits make you queer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 3 months ago (17 children)

    They won't be willingly lowering any ladders. We're gonna have to dilute their political power and pull the ladder back down. Of course, the later generations still have too many rich assholes that will try to prevent that, so it'll be a fight either way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    Really we're just running the clock until their vote doesn't hold enough swing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    A race to see which happens first: Boomers dying off or irreversible global climate catastrophe. Place your bets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    The problem is there are plenty of ass hole genX that took all the wrong lessons from the Boomers.

    I fear that the lauded “Boomers dead golden age” just leaves a bunch of bitter latch-key genX that want to “get theirs” because daddy wasn’t around enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    There will be but the millennials outnumber them so readily and are much more apt to have the gumption to affect change without Gen X.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    As if there aren't plenty of asshole millenials and gen zs. It is not a thing that dies out with generations, otherwise it would have died off a million years ago. It perpetuates itself through societal and structural conditions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Gen X carry the torch, then our generation, then Gen Z.

    Each grown under the system of selfishness, the rest are discarded.

    Do not believe that we are special.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    You are not factoring in the world wars.

    The boomers were raised by people with ptsd who were raised by people with ptsd.

    Has nothing to do with being special and everything to do with millennials being the first generation not raised by collectively traumatized parents.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    At which point the Millennials will be in charge.

    Can't wait for JD Vance, Pete Buttigieg, and Mark Zuckerberg to hold the keys to the castle. Hope all y'all are excited to start a shooting war with China.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Why lump Buttigieg in with those assholes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, just for starters...

    But he's been a corporate plant and a soulless climber within the Democratic Party since his mayoral days. The absolute worst that the party has to offer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Your article says Pete started work in his 20's as a consultant for McKinsey. Some people blame his work for contributing to price fixing bread at Canadian grocery store(s) 6 years before he started working there.

    This doesn't feel like a big deal to me or your average American. This feels like a campaign to run the career of a young and potentially effective Dem politician through the mud. Like had been done to Hilary and and now AOC. This doesn't mean that Pete Buttigieg is perfect, but let's not pretend he's the same as JD Fucking Vance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Your article says Pete started work in his 20’s as a consultant for McKinsey.

    Specifically, for Loblaws, which was in the middle of the bread price fixing scandal while employing McKinsey to facilitate it. This was a career accomplishment that Pete touted while running for office, because he thought "I worked 14-hour days to make a grocery store more efficient!" was going to be received as a testament to his hard work.

    Anyone familiar with what McKinsey consultants actually do within a company will tell you why that's bullshit. And why "McKinsey Consultant" on a resume typically signals someone as spineless as they are ruthless, when it comes to ruining the lives of the working class.

    This doesn’t feel like a big deal to me or your average American.

    Your Average American probably couldn't pick Pete out of a line-up. Or JD Vance. Or Mark Zuckerberg. So, no surprise there.

    This feels like a campaign to run the career of a young and potentially effective Dem politician

    You make it sound like Pete doesn't already have a political track record. The folks that do know him - whether from his mayoral days in a small Indiana town where he privatized public services and bloated the police force - or as Transportation Secretary under Biden - during which he presided over a number of high profile train crashes and helped break a strike of Union Pacific workers - tend to hate him.

    If he manages to reach the next rung of the political ladder, it will only be thanks to insiders in the Dem establishment boosting him in exchange for money from his extensive private donor network.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    You know as well as I do those types of people would just say "why do you think I want to deport 1/3 of the country?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    They can say whatever they want. Their work visa philipino care aid isn't gonna give any more fucks cathing them when they have 20 other geriatrics in their care. If they want white people they can talk and relate to than they'd better make healthcare a viable profession for their grandchildren.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 46 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I have a boomer on my wife’s side that just remortgaged his house at 84 to buy an $80,000 Toyota Tacoma with all the custom add-on bullshit. They are not only intent on spending every cent they have, but also signing loans they never intend to pay off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I have a boomer on my wife’s side that just remortgaged his house at 84

    Why attribute to dementia what can be attributed to malice of forethought?

    Boomers are also falling for phone scams and online phishing attacks in record numbers. Almost as though they're old af, living alone, and incapable of taking care of themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    No no he has a boomer 2nd wife intent on leaving nothing behind to the kids from his first marriage. It’s 100% petty spending.

    I’ll never give a boomer the benefit of the doubt when a situation can be explained by selfishness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 79 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Someone who uses a ladder to reach a higher spot (uses privileged situations to improve their life standards) and pulls the ladder up from behind them so those that follow can't use it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 106 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    For example: taking advantage of government subsidised secondary education to reach a higher income without loads of debt and then voting to get rid of the subsidies so you can pay slightly less in taxes because "you don't want to pay for someone else's schooling"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    See my formerly poor father who got a pell grant and used it to get out of poverty to comfortable middle class but is a conservative who generally does not want the government helping people because it could be abused.

    On the bright side he became disillusioned with MAGA and now just generally hates all politicians which I will consider a win for him

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    Wow almost full circle. Uneducated—> college —> ladder pull —> far right maga —> hates all politicians.

    Now maybe if he went back to school one more time he might actually understand what a stupid path he took.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The problem is have with the term "ladder pullers" is that it implies the ladder is still around and functional, just waiting to be lowered.

    We sold the ladder for scrap metal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    We didn't sell it. They sold it because it wasn't to be used by anyone else after them and they kept their ladder money until it gets funneled into the medical system because their kids "didn't earn it".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 3 months ago

    Gen-X here (the ones immediately after the boomers but before the Millenials), it is amazing how many of my school mates ended up having no children. Yes many did, but a surprising number did not. In my circle (childhood neighbors, classmates, family) it's almost half.

  • source
  • [–] 69 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    Not to defend Boomers, but let's not let the "Greatest Generation" off the hook that easy...

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    They get a pass for the horror they lived through

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

    Boomers lived through plenty of horrors. Vietnam, deindustrialization, the Volcker Shock, leaded gasoline/paint, AIDS...

    The 1970s was a fucked decade.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    The 20th century in general is kind of unfathomably different from most of the rest of history. It was a wild time to be alive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    You could say, humanity learned how to REALLY fuck around.

    We are now REALLY finding out.

    Thanks, grampa

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Paul Simon sums it up in "That Was Your Mother" off Graceland, singing to his child:

    That was your mother and that was your father Before you were born, dude, when life was great You are the burden of my generation I sure do love you, but let's get that straight

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago

    Honestly yeah. I'm here so I'm gonna try my best, but why would I want to drag another being into this shit?

  • source
  • [–] 86 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    ageism alienates allies; no war but class war

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    Oh, I didn't have kids simply because I don't like them, never had any desire to be a parent, and there is literally nothing in my life that children wouldn't ruin

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    The important thing about not having children is that any reason is all the reason that is needed. I've heard so many people want an explenation, instead of just accepting that to some people, children just straight up suck.

    My life would also get infinitely worse by having children, because how I wanna live my life, and what I dream of, is completely incompatible with taking care of someone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I have kids, but I don't understand how some people feel like it's an obligation to have them.

    Nobody should feel obligated to do so. It's damn hard to do more or less properly and requires quite a bit of sacrifice.

    Oh, and if society as a whole complains about a low birth rate, maybe let's focus more on the hardships the new generations have to face: hard to find and keep a job, unfair pay, costly rent, and the nearly impossible cost of homeownership.

    Let's tackle those and see what happens instead of pressuring people into parenthood.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    I can't speak for everywhere, but in my community and among my family members, the number one reason they want everyone to have kids is religion. Their god(s) tell them to have children, and so they do (my FIL has five!!!) They see fecundity as godliness, and so at best they see childless adults as confused or misguided, and at worst they see them as heathens and heretics. Most of my family are good people and understand the value of self-determination, even if they don't understand my reasons. But there are outliers; someone once told me that they were glad I wasn't having more children because I live a "pagan" life and my children would be punished by god unless I raised them into the church... No clue why they thought I was pagan, as I've always been clear about my personal dismissal of religion.

    Wild.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    I have one kid, and everyone asks when Im having another. Some people just expect you to keep breeding.

    For me the one kid is fine. Two would be a substantial downgrade in quality of life for my wife and I AND our kid. Three is right out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Plenty of people just don't want kids, but they feel pressured to come up with reasons such as money, the environment, or whatever else, because people can't accept "I don't wanna" as a reason

    I have lost count of the number of times I've heard "that's selfish" when I say that I am child-free

    Always from fucking morons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    If they are very insistent and won't keep bugging me with such a (i feel) personal question, I feel that I am right in giving them too much information.

    "We aren't having kids because I keep busting on her tits and face" something like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I'm sterile and so is my partner

    I've had plenty of people get nasty and say "what would you do if she got pregnant?"

    I always respond "oh, that's not possible, especially the way we do it" and see how long it takes to click

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    I have kids and absolutely love it. In fact there's not much that my kids haven't made better. Of course there's day where I wanna smash my head against a brick, but most days are wonderful.

    I've never heard someone say they don't want kids and thought really anything of it. If someone doesn't want kids that's nobodies business but their own and I think for most people it makes sense to not. They're a lot of responsibility, they cost a lot of money, and take up all your time. It just so happens that if I had no responsibilities, nothing but free time and more money I'd be shooting up and sleeping in a ditch somewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 3 months ago (18 children)

    Things would be very different if there were no billionaires. But they do exist, and that's why we live in a world where children have no future.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 3 months ago (17 children)

    It's so easy to turn billionaires into the main villains of the story, but it's a lazy thing to do. The real evil is the unregulated and unchecked system that allowed billionaires to be a thing. Keep that in place and grifter billionaires will just keep on popping up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    Billionaires are the capitalists that maintain capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 3 months ago (13 children)

    Nah. Billionaires didn't force Reagan and Clinton to deregulate the US and set the stage for what we have today. Capitalism existed while FDR implemented the new deal, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    There weren't as many billionaires influencing politicians because there were vastly fewer billionaires, and the value of the dollar was way higher. A 100millionare in the 80's would have, I imagine, had similar influence to today's billionaires.

    Hell, Reagan had the "Kitchen Cabinet" that was all wealthy business owners.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Billionaires are a symptom, not the sickness. Yes, we need to rid ourselves of billionaires the way we rid ourselves of the robber barons, but they are not the problem no matter how hard you wish them to be. The problem is the system that allowed them to exist. Rich fucks were always around to exhert influence, but not like this. We had guard rails in place to limit their political influence, to break up monopolies, to set limits on political donations, to set limits on campaign finance, to set limits on media influence, etc.

    By all means, break out the guillotine, but you cannot stop there. Saying "billionaire bad" is not enough. You have to have wholesale reform or you are going to end up in the same place, or much worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I can't even tell what point you're trying to make anymore...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    The problem is unrestricted, unregulated capitalism. Get rid of the top 20 billionaires and others will take their place, just as bad or maybe worse. Regulation goes a long way to addressing many of the problems we are seeing in our world today. Is it the only solution? Definitely not, but having had most regulation gutted (started in the 80s and just getting more hamstrung from there) has escalated the problem immensely. Reintroducing strong business regulation is a good start because, contrary to what a lot of you all are hoping for, most folks aren't ready to seize the means of production and make a wholesale change to a socialist utopia.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I genuinely do not understand why my point was so hard to grasp. Billionaires are bad, yes I agree, but billionaires are the end product of a system that allow billionaires to exist. Do not only focus on symptom, focus on the cause.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I think you're confused. Do billionaires own the means of production, or don't they?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I am not confused, and I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing. My point isn't that billionaires are faultless or good. My point is that they are not the root of the evil. We cannot just rid ourselves of the billionaires, pat ourselves on the back and call it a day. We have to do that, and then go further. We have to, at the very least, put the guardrails back in place to ensure a new crop doesn't pop right back up.

    The great crash and the following great depression took care of the robber barons. We regulated in order to avoid them again, but eventually forgot our lesson. I suspect that the AI crash will take care of this current batch of rich fucks, and we will once again regulate and focus on people like FDR did. I just wish we would stop forgetting the lessons of the not so distant past.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Ok, I think I see what you're getting at. Billionaires constitute the capitalist class, but individual capitalists aren't the problem; it's the capitalist class that needs to be abolished

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Exactly! We need to set checks in place to make sure the mega rich are not allowed to be a thing. I am sorry but nobody should be rich enough to set up space tourism as a side hobby while his employees piss in bottles at the warehouse. That's fucking insane!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    Judging from your vote scores on this comment chain, its apparently very unpopular to think radically.

    You know, what actually is the cause, how does cause lead to effect, we should address the cause, not the symptom, etc.

    What seems to be easier is 'billionaires bad'.

    But not 'how is there billionaires, why is there billionaires?'

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Right.. The people at the top weren't billionaires, but they were the wealthy elite, who had hundreds of millions of dollars, and before that, tens, and before that just millionaires.

    The wealthy elite are always the ones that pull the strings in a capitalist organization of the economy..

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I think you are GREATLY, GREATLY misunderstanding the level of lobbying the rich do to keep and expand their power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Money_(book) gives you a peek behind the curtains of just a few billionaires. Its scary how deep their roots run through society. Now imagine that times 1000's of billionaires. They litterally control how 95% of the population, eat, sleep, think, pray, and vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    You forgot the OG

    We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children

    Which Millennials of a certain economic cohort are still far too willing to say in private, nevermind in public.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    1 comment in c/childfree@lemmy.world view that post