What civil rights issues do you suppose we will be talking about in 30 years?

Trans* people.

Pets.

Children.

Neurodiversity.

@SpatzieLover thank you, I have learned a word.

Possibly racial issues again, as whites become a smaller percentage of the population.

AI, possibly.

I agree with @Aethelflaed. I think affirmative action type laws, and quotas especially, will continue to be eliminated. Or, at least up for votes.

Polygamous marriage, intergenerational marriage, NAMBLA marriage and polyamory marriage.

Conservatives as a protected category. Sorta like dividing by zero!

@JLeslie I was really going in the direction of expansion of affirmative action with that…

Honestly, I have really dark skin for an Irishman and wonder if it might behoove me to check Latino on job applications.

I certainly hope that trans / gender neutral civil rights issues progress over the next thirty years.

Hm! Hopefully, “illegal aliens” again, only ones not of this planet. :)

Pretty much the entire Bill of Rights. Most of the rights have been slowly eroded/eviscerated over the last decade or so. Freedom of speech, privacy issues are especially going to be relevant, I think.

I think the real problem is people have been abusing freedom of speech, privacy etc. recently.

Much of the same. I expect backlash.

It is a sobering thought, but I am researching civil rights issues from the 1830s and reading the commentary in newspapers and so many similar arguments and excuses are present that are often present in discourse about civil rights today.

The financial cost -
Our needs are greater than theirs…
They didn’t make the changes then, so we can’t make it now.
It was all——> his/her/their fault.

So, where will we be in 30 years? I don’t know.

@Dutchess_III, how so? What abuses of freedom of speech and privacy?

Citizens with criminal records.

Refugees and who should take them.
Should those refugees have the same rights as everyone else.
And anything else to do with the rights of displaced people.

@Bellatrix So true. Every generation thinks they don’t discriminate. Hell, slave owners thought they were totally free of racism. After women got the vote, suffragettes had to convince people – both men and women – that they were delusional if they thought equality had now been achieved.

@Bellatrix, you could be right on the mark, especially if climate changes disrupt geographic and environmental climates enough that there are huge influxes of migrants shifting from one part of the globe to another.

If genetic modifications get underway, then unmodified humans might have problems, a’la Hollywood.

Bald men with atrocious comb-overs, time for the laughter & mocking to cease.
Embrace the shaven bonce gentlemen, it’s the only way.

Eradication of forced marriage, especially in the Muslim population.

Eradication of genital mutilation of children.

The right to choose to die with dignity.

Since you have a TARDIS, can’t you just go check it out and report back to us?

@Aethelflaed Really? You think communities that are 50% Hispanic aren’t eventually going to wonder why Hispanics need protection? Don’t get me wrong, I understand how a majority population can still need protection, but I still think there will be arguments and votes against giving them a leg up. Look at California universities, they did away with quotas for minorities to get in to the schools. I vaguely remember in FL under Gov. Jeb Bush they did away with favoring minorities in universities and other state entities like bids for government contracts.

Human clones.

Gay rights, women’s rights, black rights. The US is moving backwards on a lot of these issues right now, so you will have to start over.

@AngryWhiteMale Westboro Baptist Church comes to mine. Picketing the funerals of service men who have died in the line of duty is abuse of free speech, in my opinion.

Right to die laws are next after we get the right to marry issues settled (and, unfortunately, that is going to take longer than it should.)

@JLeslie It’s not always about who’s the majority, it’s about who the dominant group is and about equality. Women are pretty much always more than half the population, yet somehow, most of history has given women the shit end of the stick. Affirmative action is designed to help eliminate those power inequalities, not acknowledge who has the most bodies on its side. (Why is Jeb Bush part of this? – he’s not exactly on the side of civil rights…)

@Aethelflaed Isn’t that what I said? Don’t get me wrong, I understand how a majority population can still need protection. Jeb Bush was the one who got rid of affirmative action in FL for public institutions. In fact I think TX did that too. So, Cali, FL, and TX, states that happen to have very high Hispanic populations. I don’t know what other states might have done the same thing. I think maybe you read my answer too fast.

I think we’ll still be dealing with the same things, but hopefully a lesser percentage of people will by trying to restrict others.

@JLeslie Yeah, I get that he got rid of affirmative action, what I’m not getting is how exactly that equals a furthering of civil rights…

@Aethelflaed I’m not saying it does, althought he believed it did. The question at hand is what civil rights issues will we be talking about in 30 years.

@Dutchess_III, ooh. Good example there. Yeah, I’d say that’s potentially arguably a case of abuse of freedom of speech…

@AngryWhiteMale It was a potentially arguable case of abuse, until SCOTUS decided that, no, that argument just did not fly.

True, @Aethelflaed, but SCOTUS has also decided that corporations are people, among other recent shockingly bad decisions (Kentucky v. King comes readily to mind). The Supreme Court we’ve had the last decade or so hasn’t exactly been a shining example of analytical jurisprudence.