this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
10 points (100.0% liked)

People Twitter

7227 readers
1140 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. 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
 
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Litebit@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

It is still normal in many parts of the world.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Here's the thing.

It shouldn't be stigmatized, and it shouldn't be something that's any of anyone else's business beyond being an interesting fact about a person. Just one more nugget to find.

There's no single right answer for everyone.

Families are fucking complicated. Some of them, you could happily live together your entire life. Others, you might need a giant house and you'd still have friction. Some, you don't even want to be in the same state, much less share a house.

It is, however, true that as the number of people in a group increases, the work required to maintain healthy relationships increases exponentially.

If there is not parity between those relationships, it multiplies the effect. Which means that everyone involved has to be willing to adapt and change over time for things to stay hair and healthy. When that isn't the case, the household is going to split in some way or another, and that usually means someone leaving is essentially necessary.

Think about it. Two people that love each other have work to do to maintain their relationship, be it romantic, friendship, parent/child, siblings, whatever. You add a third person to that, and instead of one relationship you have 4, not three. Because each individual relationship exists, and now the three way one does.

Now, think about two people starting a family. Say they only have one kid. The kid becomes an adult, with adult needs, responsibilities, wants, and habits. If the parents keep treating them like a child, dissonance will occur in most situations.

Now, have that child get married too. You've now got 4 individual relationships to maintain, the original triplet, the new triplet with the spouse and parents, plus a triplet with each parent, the child, and the child's spouse, then the quartet.

That's a shit ton of work. You've got all those people having to compromise, adjust their habits and remember boundaries. That's not something where everyone is going to major the optimum decision every single time. It's impossible almost, though if everyone puts in the effort roughly equally, it can be maintained for a lifetime.

Now, the second couple have a kid. Map out those connections and the level of difficulty spikes hard.

But, as hard as it is, if you find someone that's living in shared space, people still assume there's something wrong with the younger adults involved. And there may be, but it isn't a certainty the way people assume it will be.

There's benefits and drawbacks to every option when it comes to how a family lives, be it centralized, spread out, or fully disconnected.

Now, I've done all of that. At various points, I've lived with my sibling and parents as an adult; we've all lived apart as individuals, we've lived as duos (though not in every combination), and I've had two partners that lived with me during all of that, and a best friend that was there through damn near all of it, and his husband for a while, plus my kid in the mix.

At various points, different people owned the house, even though it's been the same house that I grew up in for most of that. It was originally my dad as owner, with my mom having her share of that as a spouse. Then they divorced, and my dad got the house and my mom got a big check. She still lived here, but that's a separate thing. Then my dad fucked up, and me and my best friend bought it. Now, I'm the only one on the mortgage.

The dynamics of that meant that the "power" shifted as ownership did because at the end of the day, whoever is on the mortgage/deed has final legal responsibility, financial responsibility, and that means having final say on some matters, no matter how democratic everything else is. That creates an extra dynamic on top of all the others.

I can tell you for sure that it takes work, hard emotional work, to navigate every iteration of that. When that work isn't being done by everyone, shit can get bad fast.

But it's also amazing. The amount of good in it is mind boggling if you take each family unit being apart as the goal that is the only measure of success. When everyone is clicking along, and there's equity between everyone, gods it's beautiful.

Just on a practical level, everyone with income had more left over than they otherwise would have, and none of us have ever had to face the bad times alone. We've had each others back more times than I can even count (I tried, and I kept remembering more until I gave up, and I was creeping on triple digits where the level of support was part of at least one of us making it through).

And on the emotional level? It can be chaotic, yeah, but if you don't know the goodness of being able to just hug your dad any time you want to because he's just in the other room, I'm sorry. Right now, I can go hug my dad, and don't have to leave the house. He'll laugh, and ask what's up. I'll say "nothing, I just love you", and then we'll get teary eyed and he'll say it back, and then we go about our days.

It isn't for everyone. But gods damn, it sure as hell isn't a bad thing to try either

[–] ArtificialHoldings@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Multi generational households are known for their lack of privacy and personal agency. You could not pay me to move back in with my parents. I don't even stay with them over the holidays because it's that bad. The banks did not have to brainwash me on this one.

[–] BeNotAfraid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No THIS POST is a psyop to help normalise the idea of generational family living at home again so that we'll swallow the ungodly recession and poverty that will be brought upon the entire working class; should we not agree, as a global unit, to Tax the rich and restore wealth to the Government, Middle and Working classes and out of the hands of Billionaires. Fuck this post.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Anytime anyone suggests we need to decrease consumption people complain that it's a plot by the rich to get us used to poverty.

we should eat less meat

The elites are trying to make the poor eat bugs

we need to drive less

The rich are taking away our freedom

we need to live in denser housing

The rich are trying to force you into a shoe box

You know what the rich really want?, consumption. They want you buying as much as possible because that's the way we get growth and it also makes it so you have less savings and are more dependent on your job, and less likely to make demands or quit.

I agree we need massive wealth redistribution and consumption by the 1% is magnitudes more harmful then the rest. But the current american lifestyle of heating and cooling an entire house for 1-2 people in a sprawled out suburb where you have to drive everywhere and have meat with every meal is not sustainable either. We need to reprioritize what we value as a society, deemphasizing individuality and private ownership and moving towards community.

[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

We need to reprioritize what we value as a society, deemphasizing individuality and private ownership and moving towards community.

Except... how do you do that?

Write a book?

Post on social media?

There's nothing actionable there. Vaguely encouraging people to consume less will literally do nothing in the face of endless advertisements and algorithms.

There is no way to change the mass behavior of human populations without doing something direct... like addressing the fact that the wealthy are hoarding all of the wealth.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago
  1. Buy less
  2. Don't buy junk you don't need
  3. Repurpose/Repair instead of replace
  4. If it makes sense for you, consider sharing a home with friend(s) and/or family member(s)
  5. Walk/Bike/take public transit whenever feasible, combine and reduce car trips
[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

Banning advertising would be a good start.

This requires a cultural change. Even if we fully redistribute the wealth, if everyone uses there new money to buy a huge pickup truck then we aren't helping to make a sustainable system.

Changing the culture is going to require some carrots and sticks.

The carrot is showing how you can enjoy life without consumption. People in the west have been indoctrinated by advertising and other cultural forces to think the path of happiness lies through consumption. Banning advertising and having media show paths to happiness that are less consumptive can help with this. Social media can play a part in this by showing people enjoying life withiut needing to buy anything, eg. Posting a pciture of your friends hanging out in the park. Celebrating a low consumption lifestyle can direct peoples drive for happiness away from consumption towards less destructive pursuits.

The stick, which most people don't want to do, is shame. Christianity was able to channel people's sexual drive into monogamous heterosexual married relationships for centuries using shame. If it's able to control such a fundamental desire as sex, it can stop people from buying useless junk. This will have to wait until the culture gains majority, because a minority shaming a majority just results in the minority being ostracized.