Water usage is probably my biggest. Living in a high desert, my wife and MIL see no problem with filling one side of the sink with hot soapy water to wash a few dishes because “that’s just how I’ve always done it”, to watering the grass and plants for hours. All of this makes me mental.
Dating apps are inherently dehumanizing
Most of them are also owned by a single company. Match Group inc. Some of the more notable ones are:
- Her
- Hinge
- Match.com
- OkCupid
- Plenty of Fish
- Tinder
As well as most of the _ People Meet apps. Ie:
- Black people meet
- Democratic people meet
- Republican people meet
- Latino people meet
- etc
So it is no coincidence that these apps suck.
They’re also profit-incentivized to keep people single and on their platform for as long as possible.
The fact that you can filter by height but not weight says it all
To secure your stuff. Hacking and social engineering are both easier than you think and identity theft is devastating. I know most people here already know that, but having worked in tech support, it’s unbelievably common to skip even the basics, not to mention my grandparents who think I’m just paranoid.
Even if you are paranoid it can happen to you
Sadly, paying attention isn’t always enough…
Right, it could happen to anyone, but it’s still possible to lower the chance of that happening, or at least limit the damage when it does happen.
Yup
Bike lanes suck and bikes should be on the sidewalk.
I’m ready to fight bikes that are on the side walk. Kids are allowed but fuck the adults riding there.
Sidewalks should be wide enough for both a bike and a pedestrian lane to fit in safely, ideally with some paving protection for the pedestrians. Bikes in the car traffic are dangerous.
Growing up in a small town, this is exactly what we did. I was absolutely shocked to learn that people ride bikes ON THE ROAD! Right next to the big metal death machines!! 😱
I see why bikes on the road make sense for high density areas… but it sure seems weird in smaller towns.
No way. Alternative:
Streets should be one lane maximum, 1 lame only. The rest of the space should be divided for trees, bikes, and people.
Fuck cars.
hopefully pacifism.
you took that literally, didn’t you
you got it but I am a bit serious.
Have you read all of human history ?
People who believe in any religion are the same as dormant terrorist cells. One can have perfectly formal relationships with them on a daily basis, but given the right conditions, they become a huge, possibly lethal, risk.
Agreed. The amount of down votes you’re receiving shows that, even on lemmy, >25% of users have an immediate and ingrained distaste to others sharing the thought that religion can be dangerous. The religious hold their own doctrines in such high regards, not realizing that, for the most part, they were never given a choice of which religion, let alone the choice to not be religious at all.
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion” - Steven Weinberg
I wonder how many of the people who downvote me have people in their family who will be sent to die in Iran for the lunacy of a bunch of Christians excited for Armageddon.
consider antivaxxer parents that stick with their beliefs despite their children who died of easily preventable diseases to find your answers.
That really happens there? My god. Well, after all priests come in many different uniforms. Sometimes even sounding like a screeching cabinet like RFK Jr.
That really happens there? My god.
some part of me wants to live in your world for this; i assumed that everyone knew that this was the case since it’s on cnn/bbc/al jazeera/rt/etc.
I mean, I have a bed sofa. Dunno about refugee status, but this is some Carrie’s mom-level stuff.
In Homestuck, there’s a hill that if you die on it you wake up as a demigod
So yeah, I think that’s the one for me
ALL information, except what you can hold in your brain, should be 100% public, with no limits on use.
An unimaginable concept right now, but I think it is essential if we hope to ever trust each other and achieve global peace.
I promise my journal really isn’t that interesting
There is no need for you to know my browsing history or my medical history.
I’ll take your RSA encryption keys, thanks
That is redundant. Everything would be public.
Then artists could not create anything as a job.
They certainly could. Authenticity and originality become what is valued. Everything being public means you will know who is the original.
No, because if the information is public domain, then anyone can freely copy and redistribute it. Nobody could incent anything, because as soon as you do, its public, and anyone can copy it. Nobody could create unique software, because anyone could copy it.
If an artist or creator has a unique original idea, then in your system, it is automatically public, and free for anyone to copy and redistribute.
Nobody will give a shit who the original is, if they can get the exact same thing for cheap or for free.
In the 90s, everyone knew who the original artists for music was. They still all downloaded it for free, because they could, and it was not even legal.
So, i’m afraid you’re living in a fantasy world with this idea.
Intellectual property is important. But, I think it is too highly enforced in some cases and not enough in others. For example, I believe it should be the law that anyone could make an operating system fully compatible with windows, and that windows should be force to provide all information to allow that, as otherwise they have an unjust monopoly.
There are other cases like that, like, I believe every nation should make it mandatory that all social media algorithms are publicly declared, able to be copied, and able to be tested to make sure the declared algorithm is correct. This way they cant be biased to brainwash people.
But your idea goes too far, as it completely.destroys anybody’s ability to make profit off ideas.
The result will be that people keep ideas to themselves.
Art doesn’t need to be a job.
deleted by creator
There is no free will. None whatsoever.
Kinda true though. Free will is just an illusion, but who cares because the illusion works well enough for me.
What is your basis?
What does it mean to truly have free will?
Your brain is billions of electrically-reactive cells and interconnections, and your consciousness is electrical impulses shimmering around those cells in a more or less stable way.
A belief in free will implies the belief that you essentially have control over the physical mechanism that makes up you. A brain may not be a fully deterministic machine in the sense that a certain input condition may not always result in the same output, but it seems like a stretch to say that “you” both directly result from and directly control that mechanism.
My masters in people science, fieldwork, etc.
The abortion debate will never be resolved.
This is mainly from the two sides arguing about different things.
Pro-life is about how a life starts at conception which means that abortion is murder. Pro-choice is about how women should have a choice to have an abortion.
Hasn’t it already been resolved in a whole bunch of countries? I mean, sure there’s still some folks that disagree with the outcome, but you’ve got folks disagreeing about the earth being round as well. If that’s your bar for debates not having been resolved then I agree with you, but I’d also say you’re not saying anything particularly interesting, disagreeable, or controversial.
You are right. I didn’t specify in my original comment but I am more referencing the polarization in the US specifically.
But everything you’re saying in the other posts is pretty generic and applies to the pro and anti abortion crowd in the other countries as well.
Pro choice is about choice
Pro life isn’t about life as they’ve never cared about any of that shit. That baby is born? Toss it in a dumpster as far as they care.
Pro life is about control and power, I’m willing to.doe on that hill a hundred times
Most pro-lifers aren’t even personally in it for the power, they’re just brainwashed by people who are.
Case and point.
You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.
It is not even that their priorities are wrong or conflicting. I hope you can agree that being murdered is worse than those children having a bad childhood.
Please note that I am not taking either a pro-life or pro-choice position. My position is that until one side can actually understand the other the debate will never go anywhere.
You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.
Instead of appealing to your own incredulity, perhaps you could just look at the other actions of the people involved. If the people claiming to be Pro Life to prevent child murder, they would take actions to prevent that outcome through comprehensive sex education and contraceptive availability. Most of them don’t. They would also not vote to annihilate social safety nets for children once they are born. Most of them do. Taking those into account suggests that child welfare is not the only or even the dominant goal of the movement.
If your entire argument is that there exists some pro life people who care about these things then sure, you “win” that’s not relevant to the overall situation. The dominant views and actions of the pro life movement in the US stem from a concerted effort to create a political wedge and to create captive single-issue voters. It worked.
The US is not unique here in its diversity of views. All across the world people (even pro-choice people) don’t “like” abortion. There is no preference for it. It is for most people a (very) necessary evil. But most western countries have managed to deal with the the abortion issue in a healthier and effective way that is more aligned with the stated goals of the pro life movement than what the actual pro life movement has managed in the US.
Acting like this is some free, open ethical debate devoid of political manipulation between people trying to save children and people trying to maintain women’s bodily autonomy is hopelessly naive.
I’m not sure what exactly you are saying I am being incredulous about. You’ve brought up a lot of points here let me try to respond to each of them.
But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
You talk about education and how if Pro-life proponents actually cared about reducing abortions then they would fight for “real” education, not abstinence only. But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.
Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.
You are right that child welfare is not the central part of their belief set. The central part is “life begins at conception. And ending a life is murder”. Take for instance a hypothetical attorney general who focuses mode attention on petty shoplifting rather than murderers. I would hope that you would agree that they do not have the people’s best interest at heart. This is how Pro-life proponents see this debate.
Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters. There is a reason why on a ballot you are not required to fill in every question or there might be an option for obtaining. If we were to legislate against people being single-issue voters then that might quickly devolve into a facsimile of literacy tests. Tests which have already been ruled as unconstitutional.
But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
Since you’re apparently lost, I’ll make I’ll summarize - the two sides talking past each other is how this issue was engineered. This is a manufactured debate designed for political purposes, and not for the welfare of kids. There’s a reason this nonsense took hold in the US and nowhere else in the western world.
But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.
They absolutely don’t believe that lol. They believe it is the only acceptable option (even it demonstrably doesn’t work).
Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on taking what everyone says at face value while ignoring their actual actions - how they vote.
Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters.
I’m not demonizing them lol. I’m calling them stupid. If you’re a single issue voter, you are completely captive. The guy who embodies your one key issue can do anything else they want because they know they have you. Single issue voters always end up being suckers in there end.
You are more talking about how this debate came to be. My central argument is more about how the debate cannot end.
I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option. If anything it just strengthens my argument by showing that the Pro-life side will not accept any other form of education. And the Pro-choice side will also not accept any other form of education. This topic is a nonsequiter for both sides.
Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.
Demonize: to portray (someone or something) as evil or as worthy of contempt or blame.
Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.
Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.
If withholding lifesaving care is murder, everyone who hasn’t donated a kidney is a murderer. Everyone who didn’t donate blood this month is a murderer. Everyone who isn’t an organ donor is a murderer.
No one getting an abortion is a murderer, they’re just not agreeing to share all of their organs with another person for almost a year.
So yeah, I just don’t understand their position. They don’t call withholding medical care by sharing organs murder in any other context.
I posted this to another commenter but feel it also applies here.
I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
The debate will probably go somewhere if people took a moment to think about why murder is bad and why choice is important, then consider why that would or wouldn’t apply to this specific scenario.
I don’t think that will happen given the strongly held beliefs each side has as well as the polarization in this country.
It also does not help that there are politicians and news organizations out there that are happy to throw more fuel on the fire, driving a wedge deeper between two groups.
Just force women to have abortions. Now you are undermining their bodily autonomy AND killing babies for satan (or whatever) Both sides happy.
/joke
I believe a woman should have the right to abort the child as long as its under 18*12 months.
/s
Cyprus
The Cowboy Bebop remake by Netflix was mostly good. It failed because Netflix didn’t advertise “normies” correctly.
I loved it! It’s not as good as the anime but it has this beautiful vibe to it. Like 3 college students made it as their passion project and just so happened to have a stoned uncle who does top notch CG work. I also liked that Faye wasn’t slut coded. All in all, it’s just good.
Hey, thanks! I had been avoiding that. Does it end well enough?
That depends what you want in the ending. If you want something more like the anime, no.
To me the biggest weakness of the show is the Vicious/Julia storyline. Any episode where the crew is chasing bounties is top notch though so it balances out.
Weird, I actually liked the Vicious/Julia story line. And the actors are top notch. Massive Javier Bardem vibes for Vicious.
You can identify as whatever. But I’m dying on the hill that third grade English taught me that they/them was third-party possessive often reserved for multiple people. It’s fine if you want to use it for your pronouns. But doesn’t mean I’m grammatically fine with it.
*Chaucer laughs from the grave*
While many people do say that to simplify, the singular they has been in use for centuries. If you see a person’s silhouette in the distance and you want to talk about something that they did you will you they/them pronouns for them in most dialects of English.
My biggest pet peeve is people who scalp their lawns and spray shit all over it to make it green and kill the bugs. If it didn’t kill the buggies 'n stuff I wouldn’t care so much but I’d still think it’s dumb cause all they need to do is not mow so aggressively and plant some clover to fix the nitrogen. Like their lawn needs less maintenance not more. Stop fucking spraying shit all over your lawn please AAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Hell yeah
Keep right except to pass. The passing lane is for passing.
When I was driving in Mexico, I learned this is possible! They’re very consistent with this.
California (not sure about other US states) on the other hand … people will purposely drive in the left lane, block traffic, and then get mad at you when you pass them on the right.
Everyone deserves health care. And a decent place to live. Even people without jobs!
Everyone deserves health care.
Even people who don’t live in your country? Because that’s going to be a strain on your healthcare system.
Yes, yes, it’s a nice ideal, but when the rubber meets the road, shit can hit the fan, which means healthcare for the FIFO, and the rich.
If it’s “everyone in my circle deserves healthcare”, then it’s very realistic. “Everyone in my country” might even work as well. “Everyone in the world deserves healthcare in my country” not so much.
