It's contraceptives. It started dropping as soon as they became widely available, starting in the West, and never stopped. (The norms around family rearing certainly changed as well, in response)
People really like sex. Kids get a more mixed reception.
Online, no, the discourse is actually better. 20 years ago phrases ending with !!!!111!!!! were not just a joke. By 2016 that was a lot better, but I think the trend has still continued, somewhat. The pain of the internet now is paywalls and ads and slop everywhere.
IRL, quite possibly. Where I am service workers still get treated with respect (elitism seems to be left-coded), but on the other hand you never know if you're talking to a far-right wingnut or a normal person, and that makes it harder.
At least once or twice a week. Maybe more, a lot of the silly mistakes I make and apologise for are pretty forgettable.
For actual book knowledge things you can look up, once every couple months or less. Mostly because I look up a lot of book knowledge, and rarely am behind the curve.
Subjective-ish things are a weird one, because the reason why you arrive at whatever conclusion has a lot more substance than whatever it happens to be. You pretty much have to grow as a person to change your mind on politics, for example. There are people who, if I could speak to them again, I'd like to tell they planted a seed that eventually won me over.
I think some people believe admitting fault is a sign of weakness, but I find it’s more of a power move.
The shitty thing is, certain people will take nothing away from that about your character. It just means you were totally wrong and cornered into admitting it, so you must not be very smart. The end.
Now, maybe those aren't the best people, but there still might be a cost to ignoring them.
Literally everyone dead by 1950. Not because they were born bad, but because there's only so many ideological pits you can climb out of single-handedly. Statistically, there's going to be something that would, today, get whatever person ahead of their time canceled.
John Brown wasn't so big on women and queers, IIRC. Probably not non-Christians either, although that's just a guess. A lot of abolitionism had religious undertones.
Since it's been a week, and I still haven't had the time to read through thoroughly and write a TL;DR, I'll just say thank you very much, and good to know.
In theory, they could have done something like that, but outside of wartime conscription, why would you?
Plus, for basic practical reasons, a communist government is still broken into a million organisations, which operate and hire just like anywhere else.
And animals knew about it before that, if we don't want to be specist.
It was the old world civilisations discovering the new world for the second time, and for the first time that lead to wider contact. (Columbus himself died before it was found to be a whole continent)
That different parts of your tongue taste different things.
When I was little, we did an experiment where we were supposed to "feel" which part of our tongue we were tasting things with, and I was like, "pretty sure I taste it everywhere". That teacher was fired for her anger issues at the end of the year, and that was certianly one of the moments where it came out, haha.
Most likely, everyone dead by 1950 was a total bastard, if you measure them by modern standards. If you go all the way back to the 1700's, that's could include tolerating or participating in slavery, and of course colonial atrocities.
The American founding fathers were radical progressives for their day, though.
The “revolutionary war” was largely so that they could maintain slavery
The civil war obviously was. The revolutionary war was back when the British were still pretty heavily involved in slavery, though. Is there evidence this was a specific driving factor?
It would need to include intangible wealth too, though. One of the big 20th century studies on poverty concluded there's a great deal of social mobility, because rich nepobabies on a gap year or at university were counted as having no income. (And if they'd been looking at wealth, maybe not much in their own name there, either)
The way it works doesn't even involve compatibility so much. It's just how much you've conversed over time without incident, like monkeys grooming each other.
Maybe controversial on Lemmy, but Gorbachev would have. The USSR could just as easily have let go of idealism as totalitarianism, and gone full evil empire.
It seems more likely they'd be split half and half, since every decision they make has to be compared against some hypothetical replacement leader.
I guess if you could figure out something more specific than "this person diddled a kid at some point", you could actually do that. You'd have to do some serious detective work, though.
True. The job description only says so much.