Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain’t dead. Remember, don’t downvote for disagreements.
Mental health focused communities exascerbate their members’ issues
I lean pretty hard left who is also pro death-penalty (IN VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES)
-
If the case has absolutely been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
All appeals have been exhausted.
-
Proof is absolutely undeniable.
-
Guilty party shows no remorse.
-
Crime is suffiently heinous (mass murder, child killing, serial killers, etc…)
-
A legitimate psychiatric board has deemed that there is little to no chance at rehabilitation nor does the guilty party show any inclination to want to rehabilitate.
if ALL those things are true, (plus some that I haven’t even considered) then I would rather execute them than pay for their living expenses for the rest of their natural life, or worse see them released at the end of their sentance absolutely knowing that they’ll do it again.
No proof is absolutely undeniable. Especially not in an age when generative AI will soon be able to fabricate evidence easily.
DNA based proofs are pretty undeniable unless you have a twin.
It’s not necessarily true. I mean you could be framed with your DNA. I’m not arguing that it’s plausible, just not absolutely undeniable. For instance, I would bet dollars to donuts that somebody has tried to frame someone else using their DNA.
You are absolutely correct regarding AI. I hadn’t considered that. It gives me something to think about. Thanks!
deleted by creator
A lifetime imprisonment is more inhumane than a death sentence.
Change my mind.jpg
(If there is enough solid proof ofc. You can’t roll back a death penalty)
A lifetime imprisonment is more inhumane than a death sentence.
Change my mind.jpg
Most death row inmates fight for their life all the way until execution. That’s proof enough.
(If there is enough solid proof ofc. You can’t roll back a death penalty)
How is the verity of the conviction relate to how humane the punishment is?
-
Lessee… I suppose my hottest take is that no lives are sacred. I believe that human expansion into more ‘wild’ domains is a mistake and that national and state parks’ availability should be limited (geographically - you may not venture into the Deep Parks). This probably borders on some vaguely eco-fascy beliefs, and I recognize human’s inexorable curiousity and desire to explore, but you will never find me mourning a human victim of a wild animal.
We should try harder to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, sometimes taxation is necessary and sometimes it’s beneficial even if we don’t factor in revenue, people will sometimes make decisions that are so bad that we have a moral obligation to intervene in order to protect them from the most disastrous outcomes
Immigration is universally a roaring net positive in all of history ; economically, socially, everything. It’s more than disinformation when they spew talking points. It’s hate. And most people complicit are just fully ignorant. USA lost their empire due to lack of education. Every other first world nations have their success in lockstep with the level of education they give their kids. A heist of all wealth has been conducted and you are viewing the aftermath. Elon will find your coffers empty. The real treasure, turns out, was the people.
Is it your political creed commonly against immigration?
From your post history you see left leaning which is just almost always pro-immigration.
I’m centrist so I probably believe in something that offends both sides.
Why are you centrist? To clarify, if you make your political decisions yourself but almost always happen to align with one of the parties, I would consider you in that party rather than a centrist.
I think the way to respond is “what do you believe that most centrists don’t” – though I feel like centrists are varied enough that you’ll have trouble with this.
I don’t really know what constitutes a “political creed,” really, so I don’t know how to answer.
Poor choice of words, perhaps. I meant those who generally share your political opinions in other respects. For instance, “anarcho-communist” or “libertarian”
Sure, but I do feel that by the time you’ve picked a niche label, you’ve filtered out where you disagree.
I don’t think so. Labels only have so much resolving power. They represent people who are broadly aligned in values, but not necessarily on every specific issue.
For instance, I think most libertarians have individual dissent from their norm on various topics. It should be easy to find examples in the case of libertarianism, but I believe this applies to other political ideologies too.
“Libertarian” is far more broad than, say, Marxist-Leninist or Anarcho-Communist. When you go from “Marxist” as an umbrella to “Marxist-Leninist” as a category within Marxism, you are generally conforming to that specification’s tendencies. At that point of specificity, there are more “solved” questions than unsolved.
Oh yeah sure. More solved questions than unsolved seems like a good way to put it. But there are still points of dissent though.
People should be free to vote outside the two party system secure in the knowledge that their vote will still be counted if their preference didn’t win.
Videos on Electoral Reform
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems we can try out.
I believe in the possibility of bigfoot being real.
Ah, you must be a anarcho-monarchist anti-kakistocrat, are famed for their disbelief of bigfoot.
There are some who call me Tim. I can summon controversy without flint or tinder.
Seeing as people have pushed out to every tiny corner of the country if it exists they would’ve found physical remains by now.
No they haven’t. Not even close.
And even if they did, you think a people-shy creature is just going to remain in the same exact spot for someone mapping out an area to come across them?
-
Religion can be a force for good. For social cohesion and a feeling of belonging. That it often isn’t speaks more to the samesuch cultural and emotional rot that has affected literally everything than to religion unto itself.
-
It actually makes perfect sense for a country to want to limit or tariff importation of goods. This, if done right, can bring industrialisation into the country. You can’t have a nation that is all middle-managers, despite the First World’s best attempts to become that, it’s just fundamentally unsustainable. And while you can have a nation that just produces/exports raw materials, this is ultimately bad for the people in that nation.
-
That progressive people should prioritize economic equality ahead of social issues.
The left has become so focused on illegal immigrants and identity politics that they have abandoned working class economic issues and rural white voters and it has cost them elections.
Yup.
They go hand-in-hand, though, and moreover “true economic equality” isn’t possible when humans vary wildly in needs and abilities, hence Marx’s whole attack on the so-called “equalitarians.”
They do not, as evidence by the last two decades of “progressive” politics here in the US.
This country would need another 250 years of progressive policies to undo the social and economic damage it has done through racist policy. 20 years of progressive politics can’t undo 2.5 centuries of racial exploitation and division.
Let’s not forget additionally that the USs elected “progressive” politicians for the last two decades fall right of center by world standards as well. If the US would like to actually make progress (hint: it doesn’t, our geriopatrikyriarchy LOVES genocide and exploitation of smaller nations) they’d have to start by not calling the conservative party the left, and not calling the Nazi party the right.
This nation has its head in the political sand so deep it can’t even see its own nose anymore, it will be well collapsed and already rebuilt before it realizes it’s a different nation run by different people.
The US has not had either, truly.
Can’t care about your neigbors when you still have to worry about your own mouth to feed.
When you look at revolutions the tipping point was always the threat of going hungry and losing your home. That makes everyone desperate.
And you’re not going to miss a days pay to protest or vote when you know neither candidate gives a shit about your health and well-being.
I think if we eliminated money, we would just invent it again and call it something else.
Well yah. The alternative is barter and farmers only need so many cell phones and software developers.
Depends on what you consider “money” and what Mode of Production you have.
Anything you exchange as a representation or substitute for something else of value. I think communism would reinvent what I consider money but wouldn’t use it as it’s used under capitalism.
Some Communist theoreticians consider Labor Vouchers to be distinct from money, as they would be destroyed upon first use and serve more as a “credit” for labor, and would eliminate the concept of accumulation of money from labor exploitation and exchange.
I am aware of this. It’s functionally no different than a dollar bill. The fact that I intend to melt down an axe after I use it to chop a tree down doesn’t make it not an axehead. If I used that same axe to hack my neighbor to death, well, that’s a completely different use. In the case of communist ‘money’, I think we would cease using money to kill our neighbor.
I don’t understand how the issues of money persist if you can only earn LVs through labor, and can’t be accumulated through Capital ownership. Why would you kill your neighbor?
I wouldn’t kill my neighbor? Was that too complicated an example? I think that money, like an axe, is a tool that can be used differently in different contexts. ‘Money’ isn’t the issue. How it’s used is the issue, which is why I think we would invent it. You don’t solve the ‘issues’ of an axe. You don’t solve the ‘issues’ of money. Capitalism uses stand-ins for value to harm people, but I am not convinced it’s an inherent trait of value stand-ins. I think LV’s are money, so I think you think that is true also.
I’m asking what’s wrong with money that carries over to LVs. Why is money an issue?
That intellectual property, both copyright or patents, doesn’t serve its theoretical purpose and just acts as a legal shield for the monopolies of big corporations, at least in our capitalistic system, and it limits the spread of information
In theory, a musician should be protected against abuse of their music. In practice, all musicians need to be on Spotify through one of the few main publishers to make any decent money, and their music will be used for unintended purposes (intended for their contract at least) like AI training
In theory, patents should allow a small company with an idea to sell its progressive product to many big corporations. In practice, one big corporation will either buy the small company or copy the product and have the money to legally support its case against all evidence, lobbying to change laws too. Not to mention that big corporations are the ones that can do enough research to have relevant patents, it’s much harder for universities and SMEs, not to mention big corporations can lobby to reduce public funding to R&D programs in universities and for SMEs.
And, last but not least important, access to content, think of politically relevant movies or book, depends on your income. If you are from a poorer country, chances are you cannot enjoy as much information and content as one born in a richer country.
In theory, a musician should be protected against abuse of their music.
You mean like with copyright (IP) laws?
Patents and copyright originated to protect everyone. Charles Dickens complained that his books were rampantly copied. Without them any invention by the little guy would be immediately stolen and ramped up into production at levels the little guy can never match. Why would I work on anything if it can just be stolen with no legal protection? Universities and SMEs constantly issue patents, if they can’t commercialize them themselves they can license them to someone who can.
chances are you cannot enjoy as much information and content as one born in a richer country.
What? The internet is full of free info.
The real issues are things like:
-
Insanely long copyright periods. Sorry but your grandkids/Disney shouldn’t profit from your work. 70+ years later.
-
Patent camping. Either do something with it or lose it.
-
Patent lawsuit factories. The patent office makes money off of fees and is too quick to hand out patents that are overly broad or trivial. You have business that just hoard patents with no intention to use them except to sue others.
-
I believe it does function in as it does in theory, but the justification to the public is what you list as “in theory.” Regulations like IP laws are only allowed to pass because they support the profits of those who hold the IP.
I would love to see IP law burned to the ground. A more realistic goal in the meanwhile might be to get compulsory licensing in more areas than just radio.
It seems like the atmosphere is changing now but I’ve been saying this for years.
The language of privilege is backwards and counter productive.
Denying privileged doesn’t make it go away. You have to first understand something in order to deconstruct or oppose it.
As someone who was in a supportive relationship with a transgender person for 3 years and who personally struggles associating with my own gender (masculinity was never my thing lol), I never really got into the stating my gender pronouns.
I get why it’s done for the times it matters and can do so in a sensitive space, but I get the sense it’s usually done as public compliance (like a cis neolib as an email sig), which can lead to shallow support or worse, resentment. What we ultimately need is more genuine contact with people different from ourselves because that helps reduce “othering” a group.
Oh, but I do tend to default to “they” out of old internet habits. Always disliked the assumption all gamers are men.
It makes me uncomfortable to state my personal pronouns. Years of growing up as a woman on the internet makes me not want to reveal my gender, even when it’s obvious (like in person).
because that helps reduce “othering” a group
Which is, ironically, what the pronoun-stating thing was supposed to avoid. Personally I agree that it’s not really necessary, and that it actually is a form of compelled speech.
I don’t do it either, but i’m an older queer so i see it as painting a target on my back.
That, too. Things have regressed, it is definitely a target now.
Ima be honest. I just don’t fuck with pronouns. I’ll typically use they even if I know what their preferred ones are. That or whatever feels better for what I’m talking about.
You are describing intentional misgendering. That’s against our instance rules, so make sure you use preferred pronouns for folks who display them.
Can using neutral pronouns be misgendering? I was always under the impression that they’re universally applicable regardless of the other person’s gender
Consider the scenario where you meet a man. You know his name is Bradley (either through mutual friends or whatever), but he introduces himself as Alex. You can call him Bradley, and it would be technically correct, but it would be slightly rude when he has explicitly given his preferred name as Alex.
I don’t think that’s quite right. It’s more like referring to him by another title such as “a friend of mine” or “a guy I met at the mall yesterday” etc.
That’s a false equivalence. A name is a unique identifier while pronouns serve only a mechanical linguistic purpose.
Yes, if you are aware of someone’s preferred pronouns and choose to ignore them.
It’s arguably ignoring their preferences, but how is it misgendering? they/them is gender neutral-- it implies nothing about their gender at all.
I would argue calling all they/them is the opposite of misgendering. “They” has no gender. It is neuter.
“Intentional non-gendering” seems sensible and inoffensive. No chance of misgendering anyone.
I have met one person (in real life) who uses she/he pronouns. I asked if I can call her they and she said no. I don’t know what to make of this, personally, as I’m unable to understand it, but I do try to abide by her request. I suspect she is an outlier though.
I’m a gender abolitionist philosophically, so I get what you are saying and I would also prefer for everyone to agree to adopt using gender neutral language and be done with it. But we should still respect the preferred pronouns of others, because it isn’t up to you or me to force that choice on everyone else. It’s not much different from a Republican (for example) refusing to use she/her towards a trans woman. For some folks their pronouns are super important to them, so imo it’s just disrespectful not to use them when they are stated.
