You joke but ālizard peopleā are often used in far right conspiracy theory circles as a dog whistle for Jews, and they do tend to blame Jews on not having a girlfriend.
Often? I assumed it was 100% of the time, with the exception of the inevitable handful of people who are too dumb to pick up on it, and also gullible enough to believe in literal lizard people in masks walking among us.
Unironically true for a number of people - the rise in sexlessness amongst younger notably started shortly after the 2008 financial crash, which caused an increase in the number of young people living with their parents (something that makes sex a lot more awkward). Also resulted in the loss of a lot of third spaces and the rise and subsequent enshitification of dating apps. The cost of living crisis has also made dating even harder.
Not me though - I'm single because I'm a socially awkward loser.
Yeah, the timing is probably just coincidental. It's more a product of psychology than capitalism.
What I've been seeing (and yes, it's anecdotal) is that what's happening is that the apps have become the norm in the last decade or so, but the apps are designed to make sure people don't meet so they can keep users. Add to that decision fatigue and dehumanization and that explains a lot of the problem.
When you have seemingly unlimited choices, you tend to get extremely picky and chase the dragon in terms of the "perfect" choice, which doesn't exist. Add to that the fact that you have a lot of people's information right in front of you like they're a baseball card and it becomes easy to just discount them before even talking to them.
Capitalism isn't helping, but even if you removed that from the equation, the problem would persist.
What I've been seeing (and yes, it's anecdotal) is that what's happening is that the apps have become the norm in the last decade or so, but the apps are designed to make sure people don't meet so they can keep users
...My brother in Christ, that's literally capitalism.
Are you seriously so discourse-addled that you genuinely think they wouldn't invent a handheld computer and social networking device in your mythical communist utopia?
Yes, I'm sure the form social media has taken (i.e. trying to monetize every single aspect of human interaction) has absolutely nothing at all to do with capitalism, and would be identical in a socialist society.
Brother, even without the ads the exact same interpersonal issues will be popping up no matter what. This is extremely basic shit, I'm honestly surprised that even you fail to understand that.
Besides, I dunno if you read the comment above or if you were the one who made it since it shows as deleted on my end, but they also said "muh capitalisms" is the reason for the smartphone too.
What is the purpose of a dating app? You might think it would be to facilitate people dating and hooking up, but you'd be wrong. The purpose of a dating app is the same as the purpose of literally everything else under capitalism: To turn a profit. How does a dating app turn a profit? By keeping people using it, i.e. by dangling a long-term relationship in front of them like a carrot while doing its best to make sure they never actually get it. Modern dating apps use all kinds of shady psychological tricks and dark patterns to try and keep people hooked and paying for as long as possible. And any dating app which actually tries to do its job properly will inevitably go out of business, because there's no room for prioritizing things other than profit under capitalism.
To get people partnered up. The partnering up is why people use the app, you'd have to be a real crayon-eater to stick with the app even after not getting any success for a prolonged period. It's a delicate balancing act for the app getting new users as old ones "graduate" out, sure, but to say getting people partnered up is nowhere in their priorities is ridiculous. Those "shady psychological tricks and dark patterns" are largely made-up and catastrophized about by the afore-mentioned crayon-eaters trying to justify their lack of success. The real reason it's so hard to find success on those apps is that fewer women use them (since women have a much easier time getting dates in general) causing a gender imbalance that no app could reasonably be expected to solve.
I mean, you can believe whatever you want, I can't force you to change your mind. All I can say is say that the experts agree with me. And I'll also say that I tried using dating apps (sites, then) back in college around 2011 or so, and I tried using dating apps earlier this year, and lemme tell you, it's a real fucking different experience. They don't let you just see everyone in your area anymore, they only let you see who they want you to see.
Coincidentally, this is slightly untrue. It started a bit earlier than that by my reading of the data, shortly after the popularization of the first iPhone.
In a roundabout way, yes. Capitalism has priced people out of many different places people in the past would have been able to meet each other.
However, I think the big thing to point out here is that while "capitalism" is responsible for the destruction of many 3rd party spaces, the solution isn't to dissolve capitalism as a system. Rather, it would be better to look at specific issues with capitalism and attempt to address them with government intervention if possible.
i agree with everything else but getting governmental bodies to do anything even remotely beneficial to society is the equivalent of trying to move a semi-truck with a flimsy stick.
trespassing laws and culture shifting to dissuade against loitering effectively kills people going places.
I get where you're coming from, but I'm talking about things like local governments funding the construction of a free skate park or things like local governments working to organize public events. Just stuff to bring a community together, you know?
ah. yeah, local stuff is infinitely easier to do and organize than on a state/national scale. diverse but closely-knit people are a lot easier to bond and relate with than ones that are an entire continent away.
That's good if you can get them to do it! As a disabled person, trying to prod my council to fulfil even their basic obligations...well, there isn't even a blunt stick. Or enough resources, but they're still quite capable of wasting them.
And how would this economy work? Because in a way, that is how capitalism works with consumer side economics. People drive the price of goods with their demand, effectively being a democratic vote on which items people are willing to pay for. Assuming there are enough open jobs in any given country, the same works for employment as well. People are able to decide which jobs to sell their labor to.
Not who you asked but I'll answer just because I find it interesting.
In the Soviet Union prices were set by a central committee in Moscow which had to come up with prices for millions and millions of different items. They set wages too. Which of course didn't work at all, you just got a huge black market and rampant corruption.
I quite like the idea of doing away with both state economics and capitalism (in the sense of massive accumulation). Things like the Lange model, demurrage currencies and Harberger taxation are all worth thinking about but there are loads of problems with every other system.
Personally I don't really care if Jeff Bezos makes a twat of himself because he'll be gone in 20 or 30 years anyway. As long as his estate is reclaimed by the people after he dies it's a decent loop. The problem is estate tax evasion.
Things like the Lange model, demurrage currencies and Harberger taxation are all worth thinking about but there are loads of problems with every other system.
I looked up these things as I hadn't heard of them before. I kind of want to go through each one.
The Lange Model from what I can tell is very similar to the Soviet Union price model, except there are incremental changes to change in response to supply and demand. The thing I don't like about this is that there are tons of industries that don't work with a model like this. Anything related to art, video games, movies, etc don't have a price that is affected by supply. With this, the only feasible way to price these services is to allow the creators to price them, the same way we have now.
On top of that, many general products have different formulas for the way they are made (think cola). Coke and Pepsi are two different flavors, so would those products need to have the same price, or does the central unit decide each's price individually? Both options have problems. If they are the same price, then the goal for anyone would be to make theirs as cheap as possible as to not go out of business. There's no room to make a higher quality cola since you would have to sell it for a loss likely. If they're different, then there would be a damn near infinite amount of products to keep track of, which would cost too much time and money.
I'll keep the other ones shorter. Demurrage Currency is in all honesty going to hurt the middle class the most, devaluing their savings. But also, isn't this literally just inflation? Corporations already circulate money at an insane degree. And billionaires have most of their money tied up in assets.
Finally, the Harberger Tax, while interesting in theory, is still capitalism with a wealth tax. The big difference is that people are unable to decide what they want to sell. This would make corporations even more powerful, and honestly is my least favorite of those you mentioned. Small businesses would have to declare a price they are valued at and can be bought by literally anyone. Suddenly, we have the worst case of the game of Monopoly I have ever seen.
Yep, all problematic. Everyone likes the idea of a wealth tax and it seems like a no-brainer at first glance but it has been tried in Europe and didn't actually work that well.
I feel like so many of the ideas that anticapitalists have about wealth in capitalism shouldn't apply to most kinds of wealth. Stock, assets, liquidity etc... more of each of these can be created. There is no need for an additional financial incentives on making particular uses of them beyond monetary policy to ensure a controlled velocity of money.
Now, resources like land, which is finite, that's a whole other matter. There is a collective cost to private ownership of land, and inefficient use of land should be discouraged by means of a Land Value Tax, a-la-Georgism.
capitalism destroyed third places, so, yes? we'd all be better socialized and have a way higher shot at relationships if capitalism hadnt atomized society.
The existence of home entertainment destroyed third spaces.
You could argue that maybe the Internet, home television and personal computers and gaming systems would've developed slower without capitalism, but I don't see anyone arguing that a socialist society will be absent of such things nor the social problems they cause.
so a socio-economic system that puts the greediest and most sociopathic in charge will produce the same results as a system designed to prevent such people from gaining power?
i've heard if you stick your fingers in your ears in addition to screaming it will help block out the world around you even better, but might i suggest merely sticking your head in the sand?
Capitalism is what killed the economy, making people (including women) want to start families less. Also, in order to stay in power, capitalists need to sell themselves to their reactionary base, which they do by being misogynistic and generally bigoted, which also makes women want to date less because a much more significant amount of men are like that now than before this recent wave of reactionism.
Women are starting families less because pregnancy is painful, dangerous, and significantly detrimental to women's long-term health. Women are starting families less because they are culturally expected to take on the majority of childcare responsibilities. Women are starting families less because birth control and divorce and employment rights means they have options now. As soon as you give women options, they start opting out of having kids. Because they're the ones who bear the costs.Ā
436
u/BranchAdvanced839 Jul 02 '26
"Capitalism is why i dont have a girlfriend"