this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
1573 points (99.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

8506 readers
2797 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1573
Sweet Spot (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by gedaliyah@lemmy.world to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 187 points 2 months ago (1 children)

peace out

Spend their retirement calling the cafeteria staff at Luby’s racial slurs and saying trans kids and drag queens are evil.

[–] Zero22xx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 95 points 2 months ago (2 children)

And voting for people that will make everyone's life hell and ensure that no one else will ever get to experience the quality of life that they did.

[–] Lucien@mander.xyz 27 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Not to sound ageist, but I firmly believe voting privileges should be revoked when you retire.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 39 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

If you need to wait 18 years to vote you shouldn't be able to vote once you are 18 years from average life expectancy (as in life expectancy is 80, you can vote until you're 62, not after).

Imagine how much focus would be put on healthcare if that were the case...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ByteMe@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

I'm not sure about voting but probably about being elected

[–] i_dont_want_to@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 months ago

I would think that removing the barriers to voting that affect younger voters is the better option, along with getting rid of the electoral college and allowing felons to vote. Taking away voting rights for certain classes of citizens is a slippery slope, especially when the root problem is some votes count more than others and many potential votes never make it to the polls.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] frunch@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

They didn't just pull up the ladder behind them, they have a ladder propulsion system that will launch it into space

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 84 points 2 months ago (2 children)

We're a 1950's 91% top-tier tax rate away from the same.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's amazing how often this gets mentioned. In truth almost nobody paid that tax rate because it applied only to salaries. Rich people have always gotten most of their income from capital gains (which were taxed at a low rate in the 1950s, just like today).

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 41 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

It applies to income, not salaries, and it applies to corporate income as well as personal income. Nobody needs to pay it for it to achieve its purpose. Indeed, nobody should be paying it, ever.

You have a choice. I'll give you $900 for you to do anything you want with. Alternatively, I'll give you $10,000, but you can only spend it on something that you can convince me is something you need for your business.

You can buy $900 of GOOG, or you can spend $10,000 on a bunch of electronics. You can buy $900 of AAPL, or spend $10,000 "entertaining clients" at a strip club.

You can buy $900 worth of stocks, or purchase goods and services produced by workers.

Nobody is taking the $900 here. Everyone is taking the $10,000. Nobody is paying 91% on $10,000 over the line. You can get much more value from your large "business" spending than you can get from your small investment.

Now, if the numbers are $6300 on anything, or $10,000 on business, a lot of people are going to take the $6300. This is a top-tier of 37%.

$7500 on anything, or $10,000 on business, most people are going to take the $7500. This is a top-tier of 25%.

The 91% tax rate isn't for the government to spend more money. The 91% tax rate is to ensure the richest among us get greater value from hiring workers than they do from buying securities.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSpaceCow@lemmy.ca 65 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I'm at least relieved to not have lead poisoning, for my gay brother to be safely out, and for my interracial marriage to not be scorned by the community.

[–] archonet@lemy.lol 63 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, my mother was able to earn a bachelor's degree (iirc? either that or an associates), paying for it by working as a cashier at McDonalds.

The fucking eighties, man.

My anger as I approach my thirties, unable to afford college even when I was working full time (before I lost my job), can not be overstated.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can still do that if you live in a first world country... Yes, I'm implying what I'm implying.

[–] archonet@lemy.lol 14 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Lemmy, every 5 seconds:

guys are you aware the united states sucks

guys
guys

I don't think you're aware

the US sucks

guys

listen

hey

the US sucks

did you know that?

guyssssss

like, yes, I get it, we suck, but also it's exhausting being unable to emigrate anywhere and being constantly reminded of how much suck I get to endure for the rest of forever.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 8 points 2 months ago

And dint forget, no matter who you voted for you're still a dirty American and FUCK YOU for existing at a time when your country sucks more than usual. It doesn't matter how you voted or what your beliefs are.

And also if you can't move out of the country it's your fault for not..... Something. I guess.

And also depending on what community you're in, SUPER FUCK YOU for deciding to leave your country instead of fixing it.

And of course, as we can already see, every single shortcoming of your country is CLEARLY your fault or at the very least you deserve to be punished for your country being shitty in any way, whether it started long before you were born or not.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] zout@fedia.io 59 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Also flying to Vietnam for a government paid vacation when they were 18 years old.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Shhhh, the primary social media population wants to believe life was a breeze until they came along.

[–] Redredme@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (6 children)

There was no oil crisis, no cold war, no economic crash in the 80s, no housing shortage in the 80s, no rampant crime!

The 70/80s where glorious!

/Sssss

[–] Slovene@feddit.nl 17 points 2 months ago

We didn't start the fire

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] sxan@midwest.social 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's also forgetting the Korean war, and several smaller wars in between (Panama, Honduras).

Vietnam was bad, but don't forget so easily that we only just got out of the longest running war the US was ever been in, and it wasn't Boomers or Gen X fighting in it. It spanned two generations. Now, because there US just can't not be involved in a conflict, we're casting about trying to find a good enemy; I think the next one will be with a developed country. We've realized that we don't do so well with insurgencies, so maybe Russia or China. Or, maybe India and Pakistan will finish everything for us! They both have nukes, and China isn't just going to sit there while they trade nukes across the border.

Anyway, it's a little depressing that y'all have already written off the 800,000 veterans who fought in Afghanistan as being unworthy of notice.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Korean War “ended” in 1953 the oldest boomer would have been 7 year olds, about half of them were the right age for Vietnam but even with that only about 2.7m served in some capacity for the Vietnam war with a lot in non combat roles there were 76m baby boom era so less than 4%

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] glimse@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (5 children)

It was kind of a breeze in comparison to now, no? My dad bought his first house for $37,000 when the average salary was $15,000. I just bought a house and couldn't find one within an hour for under $420,000... The average salary around here is apparently $55,000

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (9 children)

A lot of boomers missed Vietnam as even in 1975 some boomers were only 11 years old

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 52 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Stating the raw value of the house will only make naysayers throw inflation into your face.

The better way of saying that would be,

buy a detached SFH for only 4× annual minimum wage

Like, really drive it home how absolutely unaffordable homes are these days. In my corner of Canada, the median detached SFH is going for 28× minimum wage, and it’s 32× if it’s new construction. My own 1972 split level sold brand-new for only 4× the 1972 minimum wage.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Jesus in today money that's 60k for a house. For a nice hours our parents bought

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago (4 children)

A quick way of estimating annual wage for a full-time position is to take hourly, double it, then move the decimal point to the right by three spots.

So for example, the BC minimum wage is $17.40. Double that is $34.80. Annually in a full-time job, that’s about $34,800 before taxes.

And 4× that is $139,200. Current median SFH prices for used homes sit at just under $1M in my podunk tourist town. All detached SFH, $1,200,000. New construction, $1,500,000.

I mean, really - who under 50 can actually afford those prices without intergenerational wealth to give them a leg up in life?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago

You can throw the inflation right back at them. Boomers were born into the Bretton Woods system, started borrowing from us in the 1970s, and then kept voting for lower taxes on the wealthy.

Old people used to complain about inflation frequently because they experienced a stable dollar for decades... until the Nixon Shock.

[–] seeigel@feddit.org 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Just shows you how low minimum wage is.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 39 points 2 months ago

And then bitch and moan when anything doesn't go absolutely perfectly in their favor.

[–] blueamigafan@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago

Spend all of their own parents inheritance, leave nothing for their own kids, talk about how they had to work their way up from nothing.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 34 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Would have been nice if younger folks had voted in their own interests.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-370.html

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1980

Boomers weren't the ones who elected Reagan, they were at most 35 at the time.

That's the president that started to fuck things up and it was just the same as usual, older people being more conservative, younger people not showing up to vote.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Both your links gave me 404 errors

They were almost all able to vote in 1980 at 16- 34, and made up a large portion of the population then in 84 they were all able to vote and saw what actions he took the previous election and voted for him more…

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I would still take my life over my mom's. Things were not good for women back then.

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Did she starve to death? Because that’s our current timeline

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 months ago (7 children)

It’s getting comparable… women are being charged with murder for totally natural miscarriages. Imagine ending up in prison for decades for something you had absolutely no control over.

And women are also dying from preventable issues with pregnancy, because it is illegal for doctors to remove fetuses even when they are a direct threat to the mother’s life (ectopic) or even totally dead in the first place.

America is becoming exceedingly hostile to anyone not white, cis, and male.

[–] MothmanLives@lemdro.id 11 points 2 months ago

If it makes you feel any better it still feels pretty hostile to me as well.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Things can always backslide

[–] Cantaloupe877@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I don't blame old people, they lived the best of times, their lives were comfortable because they were in a boom. They had high hopes, had kids with a bright future in mind for them, but things change, some see it, others are oblivious to it.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 44 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I 100% blame them for pulling the ladder up behind them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's still fair to blame them. Old people blame young people for everything afterall.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

I wouldn't call it peacing out, there's quite a lot of not-peace for that

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

What about Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam and the fact that ptsd was treated with electrical shocks or drilling holes in your brain

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] slappypantsgo@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What I like about this is that it doesn’t pretend boomers are uniquely evil, just the generation that got lucky.

[–] CompostMaterial@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Except that's not really the full truth either. The generation got lucky AND systemically burned every thing down so that they were the only ones left with all the benefits that luck provided.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›