Mod Notice: OP banned for being a bot.
Question gets to stay out of respect to those who wrote answers.
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025
7 points (56.6% liked)
Ask Lemmy
35523 readers
1087 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
AI slop engagement bots like you.
Chemotherapy.
You mean they poisoned people in hopes that the tumors died before the person did? Wild!
targetted poisoning!
This is probably satire but if this is true it does make you think about different perspectives different age groups in other countries would have
Of all people, the japanese should know it at the very least.
Considering they just recently phased it out (or are in the process to).
Jordan Peterson was considered a "philosopher" I will never let Millennials and older zoomers forget this one.
I'm a gen z person and I'm not from america
I know he's a piece of shit but could I get more context on "older zoomers forget this one"
As an elder millennial, I clocked him pretty much immediately. One of my best friends told me about one day about a decade ago and I was like "oh nah dude he's a total pseudo-intellectual don't listen to him", and thankfully he trusted me enough that my doubt swayed him to not go down that rabbit hole.
As a millennial, I don't understand how people (of any generation) can't see he's a giant fraud. He just talks around the point playing ridiculous word games trying to redefine common terms to suit his interpretation.
The mainstreaming of anti-trans rhetoric and representation.
We’re far from perfect when it comes to representation & discourse now when it comes to women, gay people, and people who aren’t white, but look back 30-50 years and you can see how far we’ve come.
As an example, in Kindergarten Cop there’s a scene where a worried mother comes to see Arnie. She found some dolls in her boys room and she’s worried he’s going to end up like his gay father. Arnie laughs and reassures her that it’s okay. He uses the dolls to get close to girls so that he can look up their skirts. She’s relieved. Arnie says he’ll “keep an eye on him, just in case”.
Imagine that scene in a modern kids film. Unthinkable, right?
I think we’re kind of at that stage WRT trans people ATM. Not so much in fiction, but in public debate. I think ina few decades the slurs used against trans people by prominent figures, and the indulging of the idea that whether trans people have a right to exist is even a debate that needs to be had will be seen in the same way a modern audience would view that Kindergarten Cop scene.
Alcohol consumption. It'll likely be viewed similar to how tobacco products are viewed today.
Also, pollution. How everyone was apparently just cool with it, even though we knew better. Dealing with it won't be optional for future generations if they want to survive, and I imagine they'll be cursing our generation for not doing more when it's relatively easier.
I think comparing it to tobacco might be a bit limited. Tobacco has had some stints of popularity, but the history of tobacco doesn't even compare to the history of alcohol. There are theories that we've been drinking alcohol longer than we've been human coming from some interesting adaptations one of our pre-human ancestors developed with the ability to metabolize ethanol. It's not a perfect theory, but it's an interesting one.
Plenty of historical cycles too where society has pushed away alcohol and it always seems to come back. It's interesting that prohibition was around 100 years ago and the temperance movement started about 100 years before that. Kinda feel like we're just in one of those downturns and the next generation is going to have some serious ragers.
Maybe. I think the difference is that prohibition and the temperance movements were based on top-down authoritative control (at least as I understand it). Folks in charge forbade it, and people found ways to circumvent it--because they still wanted it. The younger generations today simply aren't interested. It's not being outlawed, it's being left behind.
Add current research on top of that (and the messages young people receive based on that), and it might be in a serious decline for good. Or it could go the way of vinyl--a niche interest preserved by a dedicated community, but not mainstream. Or any number of things, who knows?
It normally goes in waves. Younger generations don’t want to do what their parents do. Parents drink? Kids will drink less or not drink at all. But when the next generation comes round, the kids are likely to drink because their parents don’t.
Temperance was led mostly by the protofeminists who wanted fewer drunk husbands beating their wives and then taken over by xenophobes and antipapists who realized that alcohol use was correlated with immigrant and catholic communities. At least at the start, it was very grassroots.
Fair enough, I didn't know much about it. But it sounds like that was based on a moral imperative impressed on those who weren't on board. But what's happening today isn't a moral suppression, which is why I think it might go differently.
That's why I'm comparing it to tobacco use. The decline in tobacco use isn't based on a moral thing--younger generations are simply not interested. And it looks like it'll only continue to decline for that reason.
It's possible that it bounces back (the alcohol industry marketeers will certainly try), but it's not just a matter of removing an artificial barrier, it would involve convincing people to want it again.
The old expression "the solution to polution is dilution" is fucking horrifying. Bioaccumulation and environmental persistence were known well even in the 50s with mercury and things like ddt but the industrial lobbies were just real good at preventing meaningful legislation or regulations. Now we get all the downsides.
In regards to alcohol consumption, I'm glad you raised that. I'm also glad it's going away.
I kind of follow these things a little bit, a bit of a nerd in this regard lol
I'm 51, and now I'm 10 years sober, so I have a longer view, and I have my own multiple viewpoints now that I've gone from a drunk to a sober dude.
I have definitely noticed a massive shift in attitudes from the younger generations now, compared to when I was young.
It seems the generation just reaching legal age now has almost no interest in alcohol whereas when I was young, drinking was almost a given. It was just what we did at every opportunity and all the socializing happened on Thursdays and Friday nights where we get mutually blasted at various locales.
And our federal government here in Canada has finally clued-in how hopeless it is to generate revenue with alcohol sales and taxation. They ran a study called the Canada Alcohol Deficit which showed that when you factor in all the social ills of alcohol consumption, we lose money on it by like billions. I can't link it because I'm fooling around with mobile, but it's an easy search.
But I think that attitude is across all the generations now, even the people who were hard drinkers in my group are not really interested as much. Our provincial government saw a precipitous drop of alcohol sales, and panicked and expanded sales across our province in so many ways.
So yeah I think it's on the way out the door for good soon. People don't want to anymore when there's better and less destructive mood-alteration, and the government has seen the futility of booze.
Thanks for sharing. I haven't followed it as closely, but I understand the latest research suggests that any amount of alcohol isn't really worth it. Similar to tobacco, how it was pretty much a given for one age, my generation grew up hearing about all the negatives.
Factor on top of that young people aren't primarily socializing in drinking spaces anymore. Between COVID shutting that down for a while, and people having less money, there's less reason to go out and get smashed.
I personally still enjoy a drink once in a while, but it's not something I'd terribly mind seeing disappear, especially for how destructive it can be.
I'm in agreement. Science tells us more and more that there is no safe amount of booze. I work in addiction services, and I've noticed that doctors won't even prescribe benzos anymore unless it's for acute withdrawal treatment, typically with a rapid 3-5 day taper. Because they're mother's little helpers - booze in pill form.
I also think the true underlying reason for less alcohol use isn't a virtuous one. It's that there's just better mood alteration out there now with far fewer deleterious effects. I'm dating myself a bit, but when I look at how much pharmacological knowledge the average 20 year old has now, it takes me back to my youth when simply going to the library to get a book with information about psychoactive drugs was nearly impossible. And now looking back with actual science, I can see most of what I was able to research back then was tenuous at best, and outright fabrications at worst.
So I think people are engaging in mood alteration more now than ever before. We've just moved on from yeast poop mind-fucks.
also...(hopefully)...lead water pipes. like jesus fucking christ, we know the romans used lead water pipes even they knew lead was bad...and we still used lead waters ourselves
Our apparent addiction to plastics. Especially when diseases related to microplastic poisoning will become more widespreqd.
The fact that people were so psychologically subjugated to having to work in exchange for livelihood that when the prospect came along to not need that any more they fought against it.
Do you really believe they will not work in the future?
I rather foresee Cyberpunk 2077 than Wall-E happening in the future.
Depends how well you fight against the prospect.
How unscrupulous criminals were able to attain high government offices, even though it was perfectly obvious that there could hardly have been more unsuitable candidates.
And in a similar vein: how so many people in today's democracies can be so ideologically blinded that they vote against their own interests – even though the internet makes it very easy to obtain basic information so that you don't fall for obvious lies.
I think with the passage of time, this will seem so absurd that people will wonder how we could have been so incredibly stupid.
I am curious to see what historians will call this period. Perhaps anti-Enlightenment or the age of misinformation. However, this is of course conditional on us not overdoing it in the coming years to such an extent that the future resembles Idiocracy. That is also a possibility that is not entirely unlikely...
American children being shot to death daily in schools.
Tbh it kinda feels like just another "wild west" era, but with smartphones and internet.
Blister packaging for fucking everything.
In a related vein, specifically scissors in blister packs. It’s like whoever made the decision to package scissors that way wanted to put more evil into the world.
Videos in portrait mode. So wrong in so many ways.
Please stop
Radios
With music streaming, we've technically come full circle and use it as a different form of radio. From Radio as a non-local source of music, to tapes & CDs & MP3 players for local playing of media, back to streaming for a non-local source.
Eating meat.
I tried to go completely vegetarian but my body just goes on revolt. So I limit myself to around 150 g per day. But I would be down with eating lab grown meat. I mean, it's just chains of amino acids turned into proteins right. Making that has to be an order of magnitude less footprint than growing and harvesting cattle.
... but my body just goes on revolt.
Translation: Explosive Diarrhea
But really you gotta balance the diet with some proteins and such. Also more fiber = more poop.
I cook everything from scratch and I eat a ridiculous amount of fruit and vegetables.
I'm just saying, I know my body, and it seems to get really upset when I don't give it animal meat. I have tried to transition to chickpeas and all different kinds of protein sources, hemp, my body just knows what it wants.
And really, 150 g of meat? Explosive diarrhea? You don't need to exaggerate so much LOL
Oh yeah if you have the diet all planned out then idk; I'm not a dietician. But there's really no need for most people to go full vegetarian anyway. My translation was meant as a joke lol.
anon's moral/ethical incongruence
Social media
- Kids using cellphones
- Big cities
- Celphones
- Kids
- Free air
"Pfff those 21st-centurians, have to hold a device? So primative lmfao"
-Sent via Brain-Link