>

No need to get defensive.  It's a simple yes or no question. Do you really think people in the past were less transphobic?
It seems to me that nobody has really engaged with what you've said here yet, because you've said a lot. To summarize as simply as possible, this is what I think you're saying: 
1) Human flourishing has improved a lot in the past, and
2) We're at the beginning of a downward trajectory that only seems to be accelerating. 
Does that sum it up well to start, at least in a like very TL;DR way? >

Yes, that would be an accurate TLDR. >

Ok. I feel like you did a great job of explaining in detail why you think that way, and I honestly don’t think you’re totally wrong about much of your supporting evidence. I agree with you that something like rapid decline is a very real possibility in our future. But there are two counterpoints I’d make. 
The first is that I think I see local politics a little differently than you do. I’ve spent a good chunk of time working on local issues, and the main assessment I have is that local activity is basically being abandoned. Local government in the United States provides us with really powerful tools to make change in the world, but basically no one is using them. When you start showing up to stuff, you quickly find that there’s a leadership vacuum and people will put you in charge of things by your second or third meeting. They’re desperate for people to do stuff, and this is the case all over the US—big cities, small towns, and so on. 
While that’s a bummer, and maybe a sad commentary on the state of polity, there’s honestly nothing stopping people from simply showing and picking up the tools available to them and starting to use them again. All you need is a will to do it, and a little bit of free time, and you can make enormous change in your community. 
Which brings me to my second point. Everyone alive today (in the developed world) happens to have been born into pretty sweet circumstances where human flourishing has done nothing but improve for multiple generations. Lucky us! But this improvement hasn’t just happened by accident or due to enormous structural forces no one can control. The generations of improvement occurred because generations of people lived through moments where things could have gone either way, and chose to do what it took to move things to a better place. Whether you’re talking about science, or politics, poverty or war, each improvement that occurred happened because somebody lived in a challenging and difficult time and decided to push things forward. 
History is full of moments like the one we’re living through now. I can imagine someone looking at the world in 1939 and thinking exactly as you do now. Fascists on the march, Franco just winning in Spain, world war coming. Who could have guessed that a mere decade later we’d be sitting on the precipice of a 70+ year period of relative peace and prosperity? >

You definitely see local politics differently than I do, because I have not found any such inroad. On the contrary, in my experience, trying to change anything through politics is pretty much a losing battle. This is why I don't believe there's a political solution to the current problems. In my experience, there are few traces of democracy left in the US at any level, and politics is a club that only a select few are invited to, and which resists outside influence. There are going to be some exceptions certainly, but they would seem to be just that — exceptions. In addition to fighting your way into that club, you also have to deal with the people in that community who support the current status quo and are going to make things nearly impossible for you at every step. And even if you have some success of that kind of incrementalism — all the while you're doing it, people are suffering and dying while they're waiting for that progress. It's like if a patient goes into cardiac arrest and the doctor's office, so, instead of emergency resuscitation, the doctor schedules them to see a cardiologist a month from now.
Secondly, while plenty of problems occur at the local level, the biggest issues and shenanigans seem to take place at the state and federal level, at least here in the US. The problem is, with the hierarchy of government the way it works, whatever kind of progress you make at the local level can be swept away at the state or federal level. I do believe that things need to start at the local level, but with how compartmentalized politics are, I don't see that as a viable strategy through political channels. Mutual aid and community organization, which then branches out into surrounding areas and spreads — that can certainly start local, but it also doesn't have to operate within the limitations of politics.
Thirdly, no, not everyone has been born into sweet circumstances. There are people born today, even in developed countries, who have the odds stacked against them far more than some people born centuries ago. There are people today who are never given a real chance. We like to think that we are so much better off because of our technology, and how much that improves quality of life — but that only applies to the degree people have access to it, and even then it's not the only variable. People today have far less free time than in most points throughout history, and social cohesion is pretty much gone. We have luxuries, but we have little peace, little rest, little connection. We can afford a smartphone with internet access, but when we get sick we're left to our own devices, without anyone to take the burden off of us, and instead usually have to go to work and bear somebody else's burdens through it. It's a miserable existence. Give me a mud hut and bland food with community, rest, and peace any day. Give me a shorter, fuller life over a long, miserable, lonely life any day.
For all the improvements we've made, we've regressed in so many critical ways, which is the core point I'm making. It is extremely privileged to be able to point to the technology we have today and call that improvement when so many people don't have access to many of its benefits, or when they experience hardships that outweigh them. >

I agree almost wholeheartedly except for the assertions that bigotry will be a thing of the past. Since the dawn of man there has been some type of othering of groups and treating them worse. The target group changes, the intensity ebbs and flows, but it is a line of thinking that will always require upkeep, and egalitarianism will require upkeep. For a lot of really racist people today, racism totally ended in the 60s. Most people say we have gotten worse since a certain high-level politician made bigotry accepted again. There will always be a need for anti-bigotry. Think of how many times the Jewish population got persecuted for roughly the same damn conspiracy throughout history.
I think pessimists see everything as one step forward, two steps back, when really it isn't the case. There's a lot of things that really fucking suck right now, but luckily they aren't incapable of changing, and we show the right trajectory. Some of the really bad things like right-wing power plays are the death throws of a dying ideology and place in time, desperately clinging onto whatever it has left. The only major concern for me is maybe we just can't rectify climate change, but even then our efforts seem to have been finding some payoff I hear >

Racism is an extension of tribalism. So yes it has always been with us. But it doesn't necessarily have to be part of us.
America is actually one of the least racist countries on planet earth. You know why? Cause black and white kids grow up going to the same schools. They are friends with each other. They don't see each other as members of the opposite tribe.
As wealth grows. So does integration. >

My premise is that there are some bad things that keep coming up throughout history. I believe that humans are innately more good than bad, but there are circumstances destined to come and go that make a population trend towards certain lines of thinking. As long as there is some type of hardship, and there will never be a true utopia, there will be a blaming type of negative reaction that takes hold. Always has, always will, even if the world is generally getting better. Some people will always be inclined to dry lines and divide, there will always need to be people protecting this from taking over. We will never be able to stop worrying about the problem, because it will come back up like a virus. Ignoring bigotry helps it take root, we will never be able to fully get rid of it. We will continue to get better over time, I agree >

Humans have gone through "regressive" periods before only to come through them, so there is reason to believe that this could happen again, despite our current trajectory.
People have been saying 'now is the end-times' since ancient Greece, probably earlier. >

I mean, you're right. In the far future, trends might reverse. Absolutely nothing lasts forever — but neither do we. It seems like we are heading into a dark age, which we might emerge from eventually, but does no good for anyone living today or those in successive generations.
That said, technology would be a factor that might throw a wrench and even this. That is, it allows for a more total and complete subjugation of people by those who hold the power — between omnipresent surveillance technology, automation rendering human labor obsolete, and even now automated enforcement systems that, if you recall, there was a recent debate about whether or not they should be allowed to use lethal force. That debate likely isn't over. There's a lot of talk in the futurist community about a singularity — a point of technological no return where the acceleration of advancement compounds on itself to a critical degree. Often, this is seen from an optimistic standpoint — but it's very easily go the other way as well, and that does seem to be the direction we're going. We may soon enter a point where the power and wealth difference between those on top and those on the bottom is so great, that we can't do anything to reverse it. And while I could be wrong on these predictions, they seem to be the most reasonable given the current evidence and trajectory. >


I mean, you're right. In the far future, trends might reverse. Absolutely nothing lasts forever — but neither do we. It seems like we are heading into a dark age, which we might emerge from eventually, but does no good for anyone living today or those in successive generations.

The way you describe it, it does sound like it does benefit 'successive generations'?
It's true that it could go one way, but, then again, it could go the other. >

Successive in the far future, not likely anytime soon. I'm not making claims meant to cover the span of all time. I'm not claiming that it is completely impossible for conditions to change in the far future. I'm pointing out the trajectory we are currently on, and that we are likely to stay on it for quite a long time unless something drastic happens. >


Successive in the far future, not likely anytime soon

Your CMV is about the future?

I'm pointing out the trajectory we are currently on, and that we are likely to stay on it for quite a long time unless something drastic happens.

Though perhaps we will learn from the mistakes we're making now and being forced to reckon with them that leads to the improvement, so even a bad trajectory can be part of a larger up-tick, potentially, no? >

My CMV is about trajectory. It is about the future, and I state that the future is bleak — and I hold to that. I stated in my original post about things getting much, much worse before they are likely to get better — I did not say that there was never a chance of that trajectory changing eventually in the far future. I did make the distinction in my original post, though perhaps not clearly enough. Things getting much, much worse before they get better would be a bleak future, even if some far off bright future was further out still. Again, that does no good for anyone now, or in the generation soon to follow.
Why would we learn from these mistakes? People don't seem to have learned from them so far. We are pretty much repeating the same mistakes we have always made, just with a new coat of paint so that people don't immediately recognize it. The only difference is that, with increased centralization and advancement in technology, the stakes are higher than ever. But if those in power succeed, who is there going to be to learn from these mistakes? From their standpoint, they won't even be mistakes — they'll have succeeded.
Yes, there are such things as down ticks that can be part of a potential uptick — but I'm not saying any evidence to suggest that this is a temporary slump. I know that it's still early on in the trajectory change — but I don't see a lot of evidence suggesting that it's likely only a hiccup. >


so the rich and powerful can provide for themselves with that automation, and maybe a minimal workforce, while they leave the rest of us to rot

There's way to much in there to address it all.  I'll speak to the above.  If the rich and powerful don't need you thats fine.  You don't need them.  If you rot it is due to you, not them.
You list many downward current trends as you perceive them.  But they are temporary, if real at all.  Wait a few... >

Not if the rich and powerful prevent you from accessing the resources you need to survive and thrive. Which we are currently already experiencing with total enclosure, less access to the ability to own your own home and business, and fewer public spaces where you can simply exist without having to spend money or get someone's permission. There is pretty much nothing akin to a commons anymore. You can't even go live in the woods like a primitive without the permission of an owner anymore.
What you're describing simply isn't a thing, and that noose is being squeezed tighter everyday. I know, because I'm living it right now. >

By definition the rich are few.  So how are these few consuming so much?
The rich derive their wealth from a robust middle class.  If they kill the middle class they deny themselves what makes them wealthy.
Its wrong headed to think those that prosper most from the system will lead to destruction of the system.. >


So how are these few consuming so much?

You know, if more people sincerely stopped to consider that question, and genuinely looked for the answer, we might actually stand a chance of turning this bad trajectory around. But that's not really happening. But it's not really a point of what they're consuming, so much as what they're controlling.

The rich derive their wealth from a robust middle class. If they kill the middle class they deny themselves what makes them wealthy.

Currently, yes. But it doesn't have to remain that way. If automation renders most labor and the consumer market obsolete, they won't have to derive their wealth from The Middle class. They can defend dig it directly out of the Earth and manufacture it for themselves, and they can enforce their claims themselves, cutting out the middle class and enforcer class along with the lower classes. Now, that's admittedly not going to happen really soon. At best, that's a few decades down the line. But remember, I'm talking trajectory here, not just how things are now. The lower class is currently being subject to eugenics, and among the lowest genocide. If the lower class is crushed, then the middle class will be the lower class. They will be next. >

I'm not going go into much here. But I'll just say this:
If you're African American, in the past few centuries you would've been a slave, segregated and abused, or worse. 
If you're a women, you would have have almost no power. if your husband raped you, no own would have given 2 shits. 
If you were Asian, no one would have even given you a decent job, because of xenophobia. 
LGBTQ? Better hide it if you want to live. 
If you were a white, straight man, with a perfect family, you lived til 60. And you better hope there are no wars, you don't get cholera or dynsentary. Oh, and meat was rare, food was scarce, no cell phones, little books. If you were born poor, you were lucky to have SOMETHING, anything to eat. >

I addressed pretty much all of this above. Again, this is not about the current snapshot of the world and its state, it's about trajectory. It's not a claim that, at a given time in the past, things were better — it's a claim that, at the very best, this is likely to be as good as things ever get, because our current trajectory is regressive. This doesn't deny anything about the improvements for the condition of people in the past including certain groups of people who have been oppressed. As I said, I'm a member of several of those groups. Great strides have been made in these areas — but these are now being outpaced by the negative, and will likely continue to be going forward unless something dramatic and out of left field happens. >

“There seems to be an accelerating decrease in individual political and economic self-determination…”
Do you see the problem with your argument? 
it’s the phrase “seems to be”.
If you were to say “extensive studies and data prove..”
And actually had that to back your argument up, you would still have a difficult time validating your entire point. 
Without that you have what equates to an old man on a porch complaining. >

This is a Reddit post, not a college thesis. It wasn't my intent to construct a rigorous argument that could stand up to academic security — it was my intent to present my sincere view based on the best evidence and observations I have. And I have not come to these conclusions lightly. I have looked at studies and data of all kinds — I did not save them, because I did not anticipate making this post when I read them. And besides, my purpose here is not to convince others of my view, but to invite them to convince me of theirs. That's the title of the subreddit — change my view. Not everything requires a rigorous peer-reviewed study before it can be believed. For instance, I don't need such a study to tell me that it's cold outside, that my foot hurts when I stub my toe, or that a car will stop when it runs out of gas or power. I can observe those things and draw conclusions from experience. While rigorous scientific study could potentially trump that — after being thoroughly scrutinized and verified — it's not a prerequisite for knowledge, let alone sincerely held belief. >

I feel as though the earth is flat. It seems to be much less round than it does in pictures. On the whole, I have a feeling that we live on a disc shaped platform in outer space. It’s only logical that this disc will become flatter as time passes until it is no longer habitable, and I feel like we are past the point of no return.
Your entire post is a house of cards built on a foundation of assumption.  I’m not saying you need to conduct scientific surveys yourself, but when your beliefs are based entirely on your own subjective general-sense of things, it’s not a view to be challenged, it’s just an unfounded opinion. >

It's really not. And dismissing it as such, instead of addressing what I've said, is not very convincing. >

Wow
You need to take a break from CNN and whatever internet social media sites and news sites you’re spending all day on 
The leftists scare monger sites spout this stuff all day every day to get more people to tune in and click their “ news “stories 
It’s all bullshit 
99.9% of Americans don’t give two shits about gays getting married .
They are fucking tired of guys using the girls bathroom though .
Read some stories about life 80 years ago 
Before all the govt welfare food stamps unemployment etc etc 
Before antibiotics and x rays 
Before cheap electricity and clean drinking water and municipal sewage treatment 
Before automobiles ,
Before affordable food and clothes
The poorest person in any western country lives better than the king of England did 100 years ago. >


They are fucking tired of guys using the girls bathroom though

You were doing ok until that. I don’t believe the majority of people give a shit about that either.  You want to talk about leftist media stirring up shit, this is a narrative by right-wing media to stir up shit.  And why does everyone think leftists watch cnn?  Who but old boomers get their news from these major 24hr outlets any more?  But I digress.  The world is a scary place because of people that spout lines like this.  It’s out of touch and borderline dangerous.  Whether you realize it or not it’s a dig at trans people and it needs to stop.  It’s the rising popularity of far-right propaganda and ideology like this that’s scary.   Not just here but all over the world. >

And this kind of transphobia is also a pretty good example of exactly what I'm talking about. >

Do you really think people in the past were less transphobic? >

Did I say they were? I'm pretty sure that from the beginning, my post has been about trajectory, not a snapshot of any given point in history or the present.