Giver of skulls

Verified icon

  • 0 Posts
  • 1.08K Comments
Joined 102 years ago
Cake day: June 6th, 1923
  • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nltoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•What the Fuck happened with Gen X?
    72·
    11 days ago

    Just under half of men aged 18-29 voted for Trump, and who knows how bad that number would be if young people actually bothered to vote. The idea that conservatives are just old people who got theirs is just a skewed view from young progressives with conservative parents.

    Gen X was the age of hippies, protesting the Vietnam war, anti nuclear protests, and so on. In many ways they were more progressive than the current young generations.

    Millenials are growing up to be just as conservative as gen x. Gen z is already turning towards conservatism (probably because progressives really suck at social media which is shaping young minds to an extreme extent). The only difference between gen x/y/z/alpha is that x and y have had more time to accumulate wealth and therefore possess more power.

    Don’t blame society’s issues on people because of something simple like their age or their race. No problem is as simple as that.

  • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nltoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•What the Fuck happened with Gen X?
    203·
    11 days ago

    The younger people call them boomers. Hell, gen Z and gen alpha call millenials boomers. Everyone who is “old” is a boomer now.

    The older people only seem to be talking about millenials and younger, usually in the form of rage bait internet articles.

    The concept of generations is completely arbitrary. They used to be named after important changes in the age distribution of western populations, but after the boomers they just became “the next one” because nothing really happened. Older gen X behaves the same as younger boomers, and millenials range from “owns a house, has four kids, are starting to plan their retirement” to “just finished their education”, and I haven’t yet found a reason why gen alpha and gen z differ at all (at least the millenials could be tied to 9/11?).

    Now, nobody worth our time will take any of it seriously.

  • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nltoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•Should people get preferential treatment because they have kids?
    102·
    1 month ago

    In practice, kids provide more good excuses to work around unrealistic expectations, like needing fifteen minutes to pick up something. There’s a good emotional excuse in “I need to take my kid to the doctor”, much more than “the Elden Ring expansion came out”. If your boss is being unreasonable, you’ll need something good to dissuade them. Unfortunately for everyone involved, kid stuff just happens a lot less predictably and a lot more during office hours than (your own) adult stuff. Kids get sick more, do more dangerous things, are more vulnerable, and have weirder schedules than adults. They also can’t really get around by themselves up until a certain age, and at certain age ranges they probably shouldn’t be going to doctor’s appointments without adults either, even if they can get there by bike or by public transport themselves.

    As for kid stuff happening during the day: that’s just how kid stuff works a lot of the time, unfortunately. Doctors and schools are open for only so many hours a day. It’s not like parents get that time off, they need to do chores they’d rather not be doing when they’re away from work. However, if you need to see a doctor or pick up medicine, you shouldn’t be restricted to super uncomfortable times because you’re not a child.

    I don’t see why a kid would be more important than a disabled spouse, or any spouse for that matter. If there’s a family concern where you need to be present, kids shouldn’t get preferential treatment. When it comes to things like being available in your free time or being put forward as a backup, your time should be as valuable as anyone’s time. However, something to consider is that in some occasions parents will negotiate their contracts to be exempted from certain things, often at a cut in pay or with something else to make up for it; in those cases your time is legally worth less than theirs, but that’s down to contract negotiation.

    As for being fired and other stuff where dependents may suffer, I think that’s only logical. It often doesn’t matter which team member gets fired for economic reasons, so a compassionate boss should probably fire causing the least amount of suffering. Someone’s going to feel the pain, but unless there’s a good reason to fire someone else, a single person having their life upset by getting fired will be preferential to a family of four having their life upset.

  • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nltoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•TW: suicide / gun violence
    23·
    1 month ago

    Many suicides being opportunistic is why a small barrier or a sign added to a bridge or railway can prevent a lot of suicides. Most suicides aren’t really well thought out, they happen because the victim happens to see an opportunity right at the wrong time. Making them walk around a barrier can be enough to dissuade them from trying (that day, at that spot).

    It’s no wonder so many Americans kill themselves using guns. They’re deadly, death is instant when done right with no suffering, and they’re accepted to have laying around. Knives and pills will also do the job but they’re not as quick and easy, and often become quite gruesome and painful ways to go if not stopped in time. That said, preferred methods of suicide are different for different groups of people, for instance with men typically choosing a rather violent yet effective methods while women typically choose less violent (but easier to survive) methods.