Sounds like a great idea to get reactionary leaders elected from people who don't want change.
Change works much better with carrots than sticks.
Change works much better with carrots than sticks.
Sometimes the option is a self induced stick, or a way bigger stick from something else that you don't get to choose.
It's rank entitlement to believe you personally should never have to change anything to make the world a better place. IMO this is a huge reason why the younger generations have been worthless at doing government things. The Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney situation proved that average consumers can absolutely still affect big businesses in a way that leads to uncomfortable discussions with shareholders, you just have to be willing to settle for a different product.
Meanwhile plenty of gay people and people who believe gay people deserve equal rights still buy a fucking chicken sandwhich from a fast food place that donates to organizations that explicitly exist to fight gay rights, rather than deprive themselves of, once again, a medium quality fried chicken sandwich that you can get from ten other establishments or literally any pub.
They're more active and more socially responsible. They're voting more than the boomers did at a younger age.
The older generations with their war chests won't let us lead and use their money to ensure things don't change.
>The older generations with their war chests won't let us lead and use their money to ensure things don't change.
That doesn't counter my claim though. I said that those "politically dead" generations couldn't even manage to stop eating chicken sandwiches from an organization donating to groups that actively campaign against you. That has nothing to do with the old people in congress. These generations explicitly are just terrible at organizing. They are apathetic.
Regarding organization, I have no idea. I would argue we're too busy with the increasing expectations from our jobs and we don't make as much money in terms of purchasing power as people used to.
I'm old enough to remember snail mail being dominant tech for communication. Maybe a fax machine if it's time sensitive but it was more expensive back then so a lot still was mailed. I'm a "elder" millennial, pretty much the oldest you can be without being Gen X.
That extra slowness from "the tech" at the time gave people excuses to slow down a bit, because they had to wait for replies or had to chip away at work differently. Research was a trip to the library if you didn't have the books. The internet didn't have high quality sources yet. If you weren't around your telephone then people couldn't reach you.
Now with cell phones, the internet maturing, and the exponential growth entitlements by investors we're all worked to the bone. If you don't answer the bosses call at 4AM you get a shit performance review. Oh and in spite of record profits this quarter we can't give any raises because the investors want that money.
I'm not sure about GenZ but us Millenials work really hard and have a lot less money to do anything with than our parents did. We're slightly better off than GenX though so I imagine GenX is having a harder time organizing. You need time off and money to be able to organize.
Most folks I know my age haven't taken a vacation in years. We rarely take time off, and often work late or a few hours weekends. Plus we're often working in the cities because of how knowledge and service work eclipsed other kinds of jobs, and the commute takes up to 2 hours out of our day due to congestion and sub-par (compared to worldwide) transit systems.
Horse shit, when our great grandparents fought for labor rights in the twenties, including literally taking up arms and shooting at pinkertons and being shot by pinkertons, they did not take time off to do so!
We are entitled. We continue to accept worse and worse and worse and being squeezed tighter and tighter, because when the local group says "Hey lets go march and do something about this" nobody fucking shows up! These generations have utterly refused to stand up. So yeah, of course our situation is shit, who is going to do something about it?
First, what are "equal rights" for gays? Are they deprived of the same general freedoms that people have? No. That includes violence. No one can be treated that way, including gays. Equal rights mean applying to all. As soon as you speak of "X rights", you're actually speaking of group-specific privileges or perhaps group specific rights. So what exactly is lacking here, because it's been one pro-gay victory after another, and at an accelerated pace. And do try to be a bit rigorous and precise here. I have no time for vague hand-waving or rehashed slogans. I am not interested in hearing about how some group is or isn't treated despite what the law requires. Even if true, that's a problem with respecting rights, not actual having rights or even legal recognition of rights.
Second, talking about chicken sandwiches as an example of oppression is truly absurd. Not only did almost every chicken sandwich chain celebrate pride month, but it's a chicken sandwich. Large corporations on the whole are very pro-gay. Corporations donate a good deal of money to various pro-gay groups and accommodate all sorts of things pro-gay things that are not even legally required to do. You point to the Dylan Mulvaney affair as if it proved how hostile the world is to those who call themselves transgender. You completely miss the point that the very fact that Budweiser even did that proves that corporations are "with it", even corporations that stake their entire brand on appealing to working class Republican types and frat boys. The backlash came as a surprise to them, and this is only possible if you've come to some confident judgement about what is safe to market. Think of all the big box stores like Target where many Americans do their basic shopping, something a bit more important than a chicken sandwich. They were all over Pride Month. That means that if those people want to shop there, they must contribute to pro-gay causes, even if they disagree with them.
The fact is that corporations, and the state, are becoming increasingly hostile and intolerant to those who do not agree with the normalization and promotion of same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria. So to scream "equal rights!" is to cry out in pain as you beat your actual victim: those who disagree. The gay lobby has the backing of the regime, and that includes both the state and the private flank, namely, corporate power. Vandalism of such places as churches is on the rise because plenty of private citizens, too, are demonstrating a hatred for such disagreement.
Third, it's one thing to pass reasonable laws to reasonably regulate behavior for the sake of the common good, like banning cigarettes in restaurants (and the common good logically entails respect for bona fide rights). It's another to use coercive pseudo-legal tactics to force people to do what you want. In the example you've given, I dare say you are not only suggesting such coercion, but you are even suggesting its use to force conformity with what is objectively morally wrong. Meaning, I'm not going to pretend to be a moral relativist here, and it's clear neither are you, so let us simply drop the pretense of "neutrality". That bit of theater is no longer workable.