You must log in or register to comment.
Lemmy users project their toxicity towards Reddit. This place can be quite hostile if you don’t echo the ‘correct’ ideals.
I’m frustrated more people are complacent with the state of the world, including myself.
I think 10 years ago this would’ve been unpopular, but today maybe not so much:
systemdis great software. I don’t use distros that refuse to ship it. Especially the init system. Thanks, Lennart!Black liquorice tastes good
Find a European/Dutch deli if you’ve never been in one you might really enjoy what you find
Graveyards are a disgusting waste of space. Their existence communicates to society that many dead people are more entitled to space on this Earth than some living people will ever have.
When I was in unspecified foreign country I went to a graveyard with my family. It was very different in that the bodies were buried basically right next to each other and you basically just walk over the bodies of the interred to get to where you want to go.
It was a bit distinct from how we do it in America where, much like our suburban houses, you have to have a pointless giant green lawn surrounding where the body is buried.
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes — our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking around. – G.K. Chesterton
Jack black isn’t funny at all. He’s worse, incredibly fucking irritating and annoying and a try hard. He epitomizes mainstream US “comedy”; obvious, loud, overstating the delivery of jokes with overwrought physical humor. He and Horatio Sanz must have studied under the same Sithlord. Can’t stand him.
I find it difficult to respect the way we exist in society. Most of us in the west enjoy what we have because someone elsewhere is being exploited. The general pride and vanity we have is unjustified and we should be using that power for good instead. We are focused on the
rightwrong things.You could say that this opinion isn’t unpopular, but just try bringing it up in conversation. Many don’t want to know.
That’s not unpopular at all yet, highly hypocritical. “Feeling bad” is just a way to feel like you’re giving something back, without actually helping.
If we feel good about it, we’re primed to continue the dark pattern. The first step is acknowledging the problem. If you remove the first step, subsequent steps can’t happen.
I get where you’re coming from. I see land acknowledgements used in colonies like NZ, Canada and USA yet treaties remain broken. I think (IMO) the answer is “all the things” rather than some. But we’re not even shuffling the deck yet as a population so making first steps accessible is important in my own experience. Too much in one go and peoples eyes glaze over.
Of course, it’s important to do the first steps. But that’s the thing. 99% of the population will stick to that first step. I plan to help people when I can in the future, but, I need to help myself first. Tho, see society around me, I don’t see that happening. I need to get rich and the only way to be rich is to either sell something stupid, yet “hypnotizing” or, to be corrupted and doing illegal stuff (and if you don’t have connection, will get caught).
People are dumb. Yeah, yeah, I know, everyone says that. But that’s another point. We are ALL dumb and especially weak af. Especially me! Cheers my friend!
I have studied this greatly recently. Including strategies and methods to counter and create more symbiotic feedback loops. Game theory, zero sum outcomes, Nash equilibrium. There are loads of studies and detailed analysis on how all of this type of behavior works against us.
It’s fascinating. Humanity has a long long way to go for where we think we should be FOSS and others. We are no where near the capacity of greatness we think we have achieved. Where we are now historically. It’s a facade. Smoke and mirrors on the grand scale. We are in a great transition right now.
Time displayed in different information architectures is interesting and where the real deep learning happens. Not just time but information structuring in general. Time was just relative to this reply. We train deep learning on this. It’s heavy mental gymnastics.
The purpose of government is to take care of the people. I’d rather pay more taxes to make sure my fellow men are fed, clothed, sheltered, educated and cared for because it improves security for my loved ones.
It should also keep us from trying to exploit or attack each other
Jeez, this thread is scary, I forget how many crazy opinions people can have.
Mine is probably that non-human animal lives matter, maybe not exactly in the same way that human lives do, but in a comparable and important way. I believe that murder is murder no matter the animal killed.
And also a maybe close second (not really an opinion but you could argue that I’m too dark about it) is that climate change is far past the point of no return and that in 50 years we are all going to live extremely hard lives (if we even survive) that right now would seem like an apocalypse type fantasy movie.
Climate change is not a lost cause. We are beating any estimates on wind and solar deployment, solar is cheap as fuck, and overall, were just no that bad off.
To be fair, I didn’t explain myself. I don’t think it is a lost cause. I think that we’re already at a point where it’s gonna become apocalyptic. I think if we don’t do anything about it, it will become an extinction event.
But, I will admit that the last few weeks have been super depressing and myi mnd ia probably not as objective as it can be about the future
Also there is no “point of no return.” Every extra kilogram of CO2 is an extra small increase in temperature. The more we emit, the worse it gets. It’s not on-off.
The family of ants you ran over yesterday would like a word, their father and husband Steve, is a good soldier that supplies for the colony. This murder and or antslaughter must be punished with the highest degree of justice involved.
Just think if exterminators. The horror on a capitalist scale.
Look, I gave a short explanation of my views, but yeah, there are some grey areas that are complicated, exterminators being one of them.
My views on exterminators and really any other form of harm to others to serve your own purposes, is that you have to truly appreciate the fact that these other living creatures deserve to live and only under extreme circumstances should extreme approaches be taken.
If you have termites eating your house, yeah, you’re gonna have to exterminate them. It’s either them or your house and it’s a form of self-defense in my opinion.
The problem is that people just go for the most extreme approach of extermination when there could be other solutions to pests.
Maybe consider that next time you have a pest problem. Are there other solutions that cause less harm that would still provide you with the resolution that you need?
A very simple example is when you find a bug at home, you can choose to try and capture it and release it outside safely instead of trying to kill it.
I know you think that it’s a real gotcha moment and that you totally destroyed my views, But you forgot the meaning of murder.
You see, to murder is to knowingly and purposefully kill someone.
If I saw you walking on the sidewalk and decided to go over and run you over and I killed you, that would be murder. But if I was driving and was in a car crash and ended up killing you, that is not murder.
Similarly, if I accidentally, without intent, killed an animal, it was not murder.
And yeah, even ants deserve to live. I wouldn’t kill ants purposely. Is it hard not to kill ants by accident because they’re so small and you can accidentally step on them without seeing them? Yeah, but it doesn’t mean that I would knowingly kill them.
I dont mind killing cows/chicken/similar for their meat, bones, skin, and others. But I might understand your views if we are talking about needlessly murdering animals. Torturing animals.
But just killing animals in general? I lost you there.
Define needlessly?
You see, you probably define it as a subjective catch all for anything that you are used to having in your life.
But if you really inspect that idea you can reach all kinds of extremes, like do you really need a home? You can live on the street, do you really need a car? You could walk technically, do you really need meat? You could live perfectly healthy without it technically, do you need a towel after a shower? You can just let yourself dry, what about chocolate? Just a nice snack, is that a necessity? And marshmallows? Bread? Flavoured drinks?
So the line is individual and non linear. One might say they can live without cars but not without a home, one would say the opposite, one would claim that chocolate is more important than having towels, etc. Some can also say that the joy they get from turturing an animal is more significant for their own happiness than chocolate, or towels or eating meat, these people are 100% with the parameters of your logic, yet you lable it as unnecessary.
You could redefine necessity as things that would cause you serious harm if taken, which is still subjective but a little clearer. Most people can agree that never eating chocolate again would suck but not cause any serious harm. Most can also probably agree that not having a home would cause you serious harm. And while you might not like to admit it, scientifically going vegan won’t just not cause you harm, it would actually be healthy for you, and just like people who go on all kinds of diets, it sucks at first, but it does not cause any serious harm.
So ask yourself, what justification can you use to inflict serious harm on to others for the sake of simple pleasure to you?
I’m not trying to argue for veganism here. I’m just saying killing animals needlessly is bad. If you need the animal dead, kill it. For its resources.
If you think that going vegan is good, then do it. If you think eating meat is not the “min max meta” way of living, then you do you. But I think, as long as you don’t mistreat the animals, its worth it.
If you still want more discussion about avoiding mistreating animals and why it matters even if we are going to kill them anyway, ask your friends.
as long as you don’t mistreat the animals
I find it interesting that you consider killing not a mistreatment.
You say that killing them for their resources is worth it, but worth it to who? Obviously not the victim. Most horrible things are worth it to the ones committing them.
All I’m saying is, while we might have different moral opinions, at the very least provide logical, consistent arguments.
I find it interesting that you consider killing not a mistreatment.
I see you haven’t asked your friends, no matter though, I’m just some guy on the internet. You do you!
It’s insane how many removed call lots of the ideas here “Eugenics”. Eugenics is about producing the best GENES possible, while a lot of the replies here say that bad parents should not be allowed to make kids. Nobody talked about stopping people who aren’t so “perfect” (biologically-wise) to make kids. Just not have more kids suffering by growing in abusive and broken households or been poor and have it very hard in life.
People are Lemmy are not much smarter that those on Reddit, it seems…
Eugenics is a system of controlling reproduction. Many eugenesists may have believed that being a member of a certain race or having certain congenital diseases made one inferior (and thus unworthy of the right to reproduce), but the basic principle some people should reproduce and some people shouldn’t.
Like why do you think people are against eugenics? Because they’re afraid we might accidentally bring an end to genetic diseases? That there might be too many blonde people? That they care deeply about people who don’t exist yet’s rights to be some particular way?
So yeah, when you propose a rule controlling reproduction…
Eugenics is about producing the best GENES possible
“Eugenics” was a term decades before “genes”
Even if the etymology was different, you’d still be very wrong [about what “eugenics” is]
Eugenics is the action of preventing it. Saying someone shouldn’t isn’t advocating for its forceful eugenics.
I’m not saying that discouraging reproduction is eugenics. I’m saying that @Aitherios@lemmy.ml’s attempt at defining Eugenics is wrong. Saying it’s about producing the best “GENES” possible is just post-hoc reasoning to make it sounds more scientific.
Eugenics is based on 19th century racial science. If someone is advocating for any sort of population control that uses that framework (of bettering the “race”), they’re doing eugenics.
A good example of what’s not eugenics is China’s one-child policy. It wasn’t aimed at creating a “better” race of any kind, and It actually provided exemptions for ethnic minorities. The goal wasn’t to create a better type of human race, it was to prevent the population from growing faster that what the economy could support. IMO it was probably unnecessary, but definitely wasn’t eugenics.
However, if there was an alternate reality where china instituted the one-child policy only for ethnic minorities in an effort to make the nation a pure Han state, that would be eugenics. If they did it based on IQ, that would be eugenics. And if they exempted minorities from the policy out of a belief that the Han were inferior, that would also be genetics
When filing paperwork, like in those hanging file folders, the papers should be placed into the folder with the paper’s left margin up. This way, any stapled pages can be flipped through as a bunch rather than individual pages. Also, the most important text tends to be left justified, such as the return address. Apparently this goes counter to every accountant’s training, but I’m sticking to it.
Suicide is perfectly acceptable and should be a right, we should all have the choice of when we want to go. Some pain, physical or emotional is too much, or loss can be too great.
I don’t care if I could or can get better, I should be able to down some hemlock and leave.
If you eat factory meat, you’re doing something morally wrong that can’t be justified.
And the vast majority of people who get defensive about that, deep down know what they are doing is morally dubious at best, but they can’t/won’t admit it, so they lash out at vegans/vegetarians instead.
There’s something to be said about the ease of access and personal energy needed to deal with changing a diet that has been inherited by birth where the alternative is possibly much more expensive. I don’t blame individuals who eat cheap meat out of necessity just as I don’t blame people for not recycling since the responsibility of the exploitation and destruction of our planet lies entirely with the people who run the machine, not those who are forced under threat of violence to exist inside it.
Fair, however a balanced vegetarian diet is as cheap or cheaper than a cheap meat centric diet, and certainly healthier.
A can of beans is about a dollar, less depending on where you shop. Potatoes are a few dollars a bag, and for most people, a bag of large russets would last them several days if not a week. Same for leafy greens, frozen fruit and veggies, bags of rice, etc.
I agree that there can be other factors, but impoverished communities around the world for centuries have lived on staple foods like those.
I think some personal responsibility is necessary still. Sure the megacorps are the ones doing the most harm and push people to be more consumerist, but that doesn’t absolve people of all their personal autonomy, otherwise you justify all kinds of “just following orders” arguments.
We ought to still resist the corpos and try to live our lives in ways that are better for the world as a whole. Sure, me recycling cans and trying to buy local isn’t going to save the planet, but that doesn’t mean I should just throw litter around in the street and buy everything from Amazon and Walmart.
otherwise you justify all kinds of “just following orders” arguments.
I’m not sure I’d equate having your hand forced with following orders blindly. It’s nearly impossible to change individuals’ behaviors unless it’s due to systemic forces (minus the few who just want to be correct as long as it is visible). But if you’re more focused on individuals and their “responsibility” even though they had no input on the creation of this system, I’d only assume that you’re fine with this system and would rather shout at the brick wall of “individual responsibility”, then get frustrated when people end up hating vegetarians and vegans. I’m like 90% vegetarian nowadays because I can’t really afford meat anyways as well as it giving me headaches and foul moods, but I don’t think you’re being realistic in what you’re asking. Would the world be better with no factory farming? Absolutely yes. But we’re in this situation not because of people’s choices. We’re in this situation because the choice has been made for a lot of us. Some people are a single paycheck away from homelessness, so they likely don’t have the resources to learn how to cook, then ruin a bunch of food in the learning process, only to overspend, and be threatened with getting kicked out all for your own comfort. Go fight the people making this the reality we’re living in.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Disclaimer: I am personally omnivorous. I have a son and many other relatives and friends who are or were vegetarians or vegans. I love a lot of veggie food and used to frequent vegan restaurants, so I have absolutely zero qualms with it.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities.
I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
Amazing how many plants rights advocates pop up every time someone mentions the cruelty and violence being endured by farm animals. And no other time.
It’s the only time where it’s relevant to the conversation, no? Why would you bring it up anywhere else?
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Care to elaborate? Like are you saying that there is something inherently wrong about veganism or are you saying that vegans are not perfect people and also commit bad acts?
If it’s the first, you need some serious evidence and explanations since scientifically it is established that veganism is healthier, better for the environment, produces more calories per land, water and energy usage, and of course, the animals get to live free of torture.
If it’s the second option, well yeah, no one is perfect. We should all do our best to improve, I wasn’t born a vegan but once I understood what I was doing I stopped it, and it was hard and I had some fallbacks, but eventually I got used to it and had no issues. This is not just about veganism, there are many things in my life that at somepoint I came to understand that they were wrong, and I changed myself to be better. People can do both good and bad things, but if they are aware of the bad stuff and choose to ignore it, that’s when they become bad people.
A simple example from my past is that when I was younger (kid to teen) I thought “nig&er” was just a word for a black person, it was only when a black person explained it to me that I understood the historical and cultural significance of it. Does the fact that I said nig&er made me a bad person? I don’t think so, but if I ignored what I had learned and continued? Yeah, I think that would have been bad.
Large amounts of the population starving is not the morally correct option. Eating meat is many times more inefficient for resources used than eating plants. The infrastructure needed to sustainably mass farm vegetables for the whole world would be far less resource intensive than our current omnivorous factory farming system.
Your personal anecdote, assuming it’s true is completely included in my original critique. I specified factory farmed meat as the problem. I am fine with sustainable hunting if that’s your only option, because it requires genuine effort by the hunter, and it provides a generally less painful death for the animal vs what they would experience out in nature from any other predator. Also, there are some people who have medical situations where eating zero meat does cause them some issues. That being said, it’s a very small percentage of the population, and I suspect many folks (not necessarily you) are lying or mistaken that their health suffered when they gave up meat. Most of the time, it’s because they simply weren’t eating a balanced diet.
Eating less meat is better than eating more meat. Something is better than nothing, it’s good to cut down on meat consumption, even if you aren’t cutting it out completely.
Nothing we do is perfect, even the most hardcore vegan has slapped a mosquito or patronized a business that uses fossil fuels, etc. But it’s about trying to be better. Trying to equate the harms of the meat industry to harms that vegetarians/vegans cause is like trying to equate Ted Bundy with a kid who cheated on their math homework. Sure both did something bad, but one of those bad things is far more severe.
And as my personal anecdote: I am not vegan, I’m vegetarian. I get attacked by more hardcore vegans for eating honey and eggs. I have cut down my consumption of both, I drink almost exclusively non-dairy milk, and I bike and use public transport when I am able. But I’m not perfect, not possible to be.
Not just factory meat. If you are paying for another fellow creature to be tortured and murdered you are acting in an unjustifiable manner.
Gaslighting
Gaslighting
That’s willful self-delusion.
Becoming a parent is not a right, it is a privilege (I guess). You need a license to get married, drive, hunt or fish, your dog needs one. There should be some sort of class and background check you must pass before being allowed to procreate. Just the basics like: this is the level of care and support this small helpless mammal needs to be healthy and grow to maturity. This is how much, minimum, that quality upbringing will cost and do you meet that bare minimum level of competence and income to raise a healthy baby.
The problem is that then you need the government’s permission to procreate. There’s always the valid concern that the government would prevent you from having children to remove some undesirable trait from the population and justify it as being a danger to a child. I know you described basic competency skills, but there would always exist a very credible threat of it being politicized.
In fact, this already happens for things like queer couples being rejected for adopting children or the Uyghur population being quietly genocided in China. And Eugenics was historically practiced such that criminals would be sterilized as part of their punishment.
It’s worth pointing out that governments already intervene with unqualified parents by removing the child from the household. Shifting the burden of proof from the government needing to show neglect to parents needing to prove themselves worthy is a dangerous amount of authority to cede to a centralized, corruptible power.
Also, it’s not clear how you handle unlicensed parents. People are going to have unsafe sex no matter how illegal you make it. Would you push for preemptively sterilizing everyone and trusting it can be reversed after a license is acquired? Forcing abortions? Confiscating the child after birth?
Who decides who can pro-create? What is the criteria?
I don’t see a scenario where this works out well.
I laid out some bare minimums: knowledge about how to take care of and raise a healthy human child and the financial means to do so.
How tf does this shitty reply have 17 upvotes? How the fuck did 17 COMPLETE IDIOTS show that and though: “Hmmm… He is right!”
Like, hw stupid can you all be? Who’s going to decide? Obvious professionals who know of kids and have worked with them. Social workers, pedopsychiatrist, teachers, etc.
This isn’t even something new. This is how it’s done with adoption. You can’t all be so ignorant and dumb. I hate democracy because of idiots like you…
Ah, the age-old unpopularopinions dilemma. Do I upvote because I agree, or upvote because it is unpopular and I disagree?
It’s not that hard i don’t think. Just ask yourself should other people see this comment?
Upvote only if it’s an easy yes
You should upvote that specific reply if you have more than 2 IQ.
Also the amount of effort and wealth expended by the medical profession just so that some people can reproduce is mind boggling.
I feel like the problem with this argument is that it’s consequentialist. You can never be 100% certain which parents will raise their children well. There’s no metric that will conclusively tell you.
But you can start them off on the right foot by making sure they have the knowledge and the means to do the job correctly
One of the biggest problems would be enforcement of that license. With driving, cops are everywhere and regularly pull people over to check their license. With hunting, there are game wardens that patrol hunting areas and check the licenses of hunters.
With procreation, people can have unprotected sex anywhere and typically in private. You’d either need to give some group of people permanent access to enter any private space at any time (to randomly check for unlicensed sex), or force everyone without a license to take birth control or be sterilized. Unfortunately, none of those options are ethical.
I mean I hardly think enforcement is the issue here. Just mandating abortions would be a pretty simple and effective method of enforcement but there are obviously other issues, I just don’t think enforcing it is the difficult part
Then you also mandate tri-monthly doctor’s appointments or something similar to check. Sounds horrible.
It is a basic biological function so you could say pooping is a privilege too.
I am not worried about helping people poop better
I mean I guess not every aspect of eugenics was bad per se, but I’m not so sure about this level of social control.
Protecting children from been born into terrible families is not social control.
If you want to have a system which determines which people will or won’t make terrible families, only permitting the former to reproduce, you want a system of social control. If children were delivered randomly by storks it would be something else. Aviation regulations? Avian regulations? Something like that I guess.
Not all social control is bad. Society and its institutions often limit what people can do. But of late we’ve mostly determined that restricting reproduction should be used sparingly, not defaultly, and I tend to agree.
For all the reasons others have described, this is problematic. However, I propose a middle ground: develop permanent, reversible, side-effect-free birth control, and apply it to every child at 10 years old. When you turn 18, you can have it removed. You just need to show up at a government office, sign a form, and have the procedure completed. It is completely free, and you are out the door in an hour. The treatment can be reapplied at any time.
What happens? No more accidental pregnancies. No more getting knocked up in high school. No more scares after one night stands. No more becoming impregnated by a rapist. Everyone can fuck to their heart’s content, but babies only get made if both people actually want a baby. Most of the problems you are talking about typically occur when either one or both of the parents don’t want or weren’t expecting a child. Make pregnancy opt-in, and you’ll solve 90% of the problems.
That’s not middle ground. That BS! And it doesn’t even have anything to do with what OP said. It just prevents pregnancy.
For fuck’s sake, I know people think differently and I try to accept and respect that but, some of you make me really wonder how tf we can think SO differently…
I’m confused as to what your objection is.
Disabled people should have to ask for a seat on public transit if one isn’t available; other people shouldn’t immediately get up when a clearly disabled person boards, nor should anyone expect them to without being asked. Similarly, you have no right to criticize someone (who doesn’t appear to be disabled) if they’re sitting in a seat designated for disabled people and they don’t get up when a visibly disabled person gets on.
First of all, the disabled person might not even want the seat. If they do, it’s reasonable to expect them (as an adult) to advocate for their own needs (i.e. ask). It’s actually more offensive to assume that every elderly or otherwise visibly-disabled person is incapable of that.
Second of all, not all disabilities are easily visible. I’m a mid-twenties guy and I was born with an auto-immune disorder that sometimes makes it very difficult or painful to stand/walk. It’s happened multiple times that strangers on the bus have chewed me out for not giving up my seat, even though (statistically) there were probably other people sitting in disability-designated seats that needed that seat less than me and the visibly disable person who just boarded. I can’t fucking believe I have arthritis in my twenties, either. I’m just trying to cope with the shitty circumstances I was given and the last thing I need is to constantly have to justify myself to ignorantly self-righteous strangers.
