920
1950s family
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
920 points (98.5% liked)
People Twitter
6967 readers
2824 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The Good Old Days they always refer to is the world where Adult White Christian Males get to rule the world, do whatever they want, say whatever they want, everyone is subservient to them and every other race, religion, identity, minority and female is below them.
I wish they were honest about their selfishness, at least it’s logically consistent. I’ll take that over their cult like thinking.
Mild fascism was always "okay" in colonial-settler history. It was only when the Nazis went full fascist and started attacking other Europeans for either not buying into their world view or for having impure Slavic or Mediterranean blood did shit hit the fan.
For many of these regressionists, going back hinges on the ascension of neo Nazism.
Suicides in women in the 1950s and 1960s were actually lower than what they were in the 1980's, so this is a bullshit comparison tweet, where the 1970s happened to have the highest rate and the tweeter is putting a causation to the numbers that may not even have direct causation. I could just as easily claim that vehicle fuel economy improving during the 70's caused a decrease in female suicides.
Female suicides hit its lowest at around 2000 before trending upwards again.
While I can't necessarily disagree with your correlation≠causation argument...
Better gas mileage probably contributed a more than zero amount to that decrease.
You could very well be right, but it's just impossible to control for such variables, so we can't say one way or the other with a degree of certainty. Especially considering that a 20% swing in numbers consists of a mere 1 or 2 people per 100,000 difference.