I don’t agree that the reason single-family detached homes with lawns are necessarily unaffordable primarily because of greed. That might be one factor, but I think the main factor as to why they’re unaffordable is simple geometry. Councils don’t want to pay for miles of roads, pipes, and electrical cables just to serve less than a hundred families, so these costs get imposed on the developers and homeowners. Some states, including mine, will require new single-family developments to have an HOA, which is responsible for paying for the upkeep of some of these resources. That directly results in higher assessments for ratepayers. Or, where the council absorbs the costs, they still get passed on to owners and renters through higher property taxes.

So while I’m sympathetic to your arguments, I feel that blaming only greed is a shallow understanding of why nobody can afford a house.

I mean prices were lower for like 8 years before exploding with low interest rates, time was there to save

Maybe the solution is to not limit to one color!

This time I’m handing the wheel to a friend, since I need someone to bleach for me and that seemed like a good trade, but I’m only brining dyes in the red/pink/blue/purple/turquoise range, I’d be down for a full rainbow, but probably not until its short. Very hard to keep yellow nice during the dye when its waist-length. But I wanna enjoy the long for a bit with color, its fun to braid and looks neat with my hair accessories.

I tend to use conditioner to cut the color down, so I often end up more in the pastel range. Then sometimes ill do dark streaks in the pastels which looks pretty neat.

If you hate the color, clarifying shampoo strips it out decently quickly if you are using vegetable dyes. Then you can try it again.

Same as some demagogue crying for 10 years he is being canceled. He has 25 million viewers. Shit is mainstreamed and some people didn’t hear the shot.

Until I can be fired for being trad, you’re wrong.

I’ve heard that and, more importantly, I believe that’s the feeling behind many young people now leaning conservative.

I guess it depends on how we define “counterculture”. Is it only to be defiant of something currently in existence? Does this defiance need to be against a majority (and how big may be another question)? Or, as the other user implied, counterculture means to go against not the trends but against the ideas and norms of people and institutions not only in power but also with powers?

I’ll try to explain myself. If it is going “against”, I guess it all can become counterculture depending on the angle. Tradwives are countercultural from a goth perspective (I guess that’s mine); goth is countercultural from the tradwife’s perspective. But that’s not very useful and I’m sure it would be if no use to have this word meaning simply this.

So… Maybe it means to go against something bigger. But what is big? The number of people? The power? (E.g. Elon Musk is only one guy, but he has a lot of influence and therefore power). The acceptable moralities? The traditions? The norms, laws, rules?

And notice how different groups may occupy different aspects I mentioned. Leftists are a majority in some places (Lemmy, California, maybe Berlin). But even in those places, power is with the billionaires and other elite groups (which are often not leftists). The acceptable morality in those places is centrist, leftist (gay rights and things like that). Traditions, though, can be very mixed with rainbow parades and churches existing together. Well, the equivalent here on Lemmy. Norms, laws, rules are also mixed, but as the user said, they lean right in places like work, banks, parks, schools, etc.

So… if I go against the billionaires, their far-right legions, am I going against power and against laws and norms and may I get in trouble? Yes. In other words, I’m going against a culture.

Are conservatives going against a culture when they rebel against some governments and their progressive laws, against an accepted morality, etc.? I guess so.

But we are back at the relative perspective, just with extra steps, with words like “power” and “influence” involved. “Countercultural”, if it’s not relative, then implies that there is ONE dominant culture. But if, as we saw with California and maybe Berlin and such places, there is always a mixed bag, what is that mysterious dominant culture?

An answer we could give is that the dominant culture is that which would get into power, into everything, if other groups didn’t resist against it. Ideologically, this mental experiment leaves us the same. All the ideas are clashing and, without a clash, they would expand. They’re ideas! But materially, this changes. If we consider how we get to see billboards with messages, books printed in a book store, work laws, etc. Money is key. We don’t live only in a world of ideas (I wish), we live in the real world with money, transactions, etc. If we’d let the world just run… Well, money is held by people that don’t want to let go of that money. Money then would be expended in the ideas that favor that state of things (status quo). Money would pay for governments that taxed the rich a little bit less; money would pay for a little bit of segregation if possible, because poor people tend to be undesirable in some contexts; money would pay for the rights and preferences of the people with that money, it’s natural. And the thing is that, without resistance, well, poor people’s opinions and preferences would be overshadowed. I guess sometimes it is like this. At least in my country, we had periods like this.

So, to me, it seems that the dominant culture is the one that would default to dominance by the material conditions. Ideologically, I guess we’ll always feel in many different ways, we’ll be diverse. But which books are published and how many hours the workers work is a matter of who has the power to ultimately decide. In this system we are living in, the rich and powerful have this ultimate decision. Intellectuals and workers and other groups need to resist and fight and debate their ways in this system. From climate change to four days of work instead of five (which ironically it doesn’t even reduces money for the rich, but they were afraid it did), it all has to be fought. I see here the counterculture; I see there the dominant culture.

Edit: By extension, things that favor the rich-elite I see as dominant culture; things that serve the masses and the dissident groups, I see as counterculture, even if at some periods of time or places they’re winning or they’re a lot (like California or Berlin again, haha).

The end of my opinion. Sorry you had to read this much. I know I may not change your mind, don’t worry, but I think it is important to keep our sense of integration; I mean, that we do not reject our fellow human beings right away because of these differences. You’re here talking to me and it’s only fair that I share with you my current views and feelings.