What hill are you willing to die on even if no one in your life agrees with you?
3mon 5d ago by sh.itjust.works/u/Zonefive in asklemmy@lemmy.ml
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.
“that’s just how I’ve always done it” is the worst when it's used as an excuse to avoid putting effort into personal growth
I hate when people say that. I work in IT and that is a very popular phrase. Well you can do something wrong for a very long time.
Nobody in your life agrees with you? You gotta get out of that toxic environment.
Lots of people wander into the desert and don't come back...
I will not install your shitty app
If someone is trying to sell me on a cafe or restaurant by saying, 'Yeah, it's kind of expensive, but there are great deals on the app...' it's no dice from me.
The worst are the sites that just redirect you to the play/app store when visiting on mobile.
I'm surely NOT installing your fucking app after you give me a bad experience (by not showing me the content I've received a link to) while I'm a "guest visitor" to your site.
I have my main phone browser set to automatically request the desktop version of whatever I visit, so I haven’t run into this. Does it happen a lot?
One example I know is Instagram, here's an example. Can't click anywhere without being redirected to the play store.
I don't use it, it's just the first that came to my mind, but in the rare cases someone sends me a link to it I can't really view what they sent me because of this. And I surely won't make an account just to see a meme or some shit.
This is a setting in your browser.
I have opening apps automatically disabled for places where I have multiple accounts.
It's disabled on mine too, that's why it asks first whether I want to open it in the store.
It still goes to the play store (website) when I refuse to open it in the play store (app), as can be seen in the video.
So real.
If I hear "I'm sure meta is a good company that will treat your data respectfully." one more time!
Using AI is amoral and I will never use it. As a programmer, every day it feels like I'm increasingly the minority.
You cannot use an unethical mimicry tool in an ethical way. You are asking a theft engine to create for you based on others work.
Fuck copyright
What if you use it to hack the pentagon, end the war, and put out coordinated social media campaigns to enable people younger than 60 to be elected into in congress?
Buddy I am the unethical mimicry tool
don't give up. you are not alone. patience is key and the time where deep understanding of technology will become essential again
I remember when I was a child and I first got experience with computers. I saw how file systems worked and thought to myself "wow I should structure my own mind this way so I can try to think as well as a computer can!". I may have autism.
AI is the exact opposite. Taking something beautiful, clear, clean, organized, efficient, definitive. And inserting all the messy, sloppy, uncertain, unreproducible aspect of our bloody electric meat brains. It's a move in the opposite direction of where I think humanity should be going.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Utilize the tools or you'll end up unemployed.
In all honesty, I don't think I could live with myself and, at least currently, think I'd rather find a new career path.
If you ever figure out what the path is let me know cuz any employable skills I have are going to be jobs affected by AI
It ain't trades because literally everyone is going to do that when AI kills all the other jobs
In relation to your hill: While you're entirely correct, that's absurdly small potatoes compared to industrial water use. Yes, we should be conscious of our water use and limit unnecessary overuse, but a higher priority ought to be regulating industrial use. Data centers are the obvious example of using way too much for bullshit that ain't worth the water or power. Speaking of power, we could reduce water use by power plants. Nearly all generate power by boiling water. I'm a power plant operator at a plant that happens to use reclaim water as our source water, and we purify on-site for the main process, and we have a brine concentrator and crystallizer on-site to recycle the cooling tower blowdown and remove the solids to a dumpster that goes to a landfill. Unfortunately we burn methane, so I can't say that we're green, but we at least discharge zero water into local waterways (except storm drains when it rains).
My hill: Vote with your wallet. If you really believe in something, stop giving money to companies fighting against it. I won't buy chikfila because the owners actively spend money on gay conversion camps and lobby to reverse the legality of same sex marriage. It's impossible to research every little thing before every purchase, and sometimes there's no reasonable alternative, but something like chikfila is easy to avoid. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Little changes can add up, and doing anything even a little bit better is an improvement over not trying.
Bonus hill: Put your fucking grocery cart into the cart corral. It takes ten seconds and prevents cars from getting hit. It's kind of the simplest measure for societal decency. I don't believe in the death penalty, but what value are you contributing to society if you're too selfish to return your fucking cart?
www.Goodsuniteus.com is a start to seeing where your money goes. Still looking for a better alternative.
The good news is as the giant evil corporations buy up everything it gets easier to just stop buying shit in general.
Good idea, but they collect subpoenable data and nag about installing the app. Why do they need my data?
Yeah I would love to find something better. Back in the 90s we had a book that you could look stuff up in. It was designed more as a shopping guide for groceries but it was super helpful.
Wish there was something that provided insight without cost.
From Wallet Voting by Cory Doctrow:
Wallet-votes always go to the people with the thickest wallets, and statistically, that is not you.
It doesn't mean to keep shopping at Amazon if you hate their business practices, it just means that you & your friends won't have any impact on Amazon's business policies.
Granted, you'd be a hypocrite, so definitely don't shop where you hate, but don't expect a giant corp to change.
I read that link and I'm not sure I understand Doctorow's reasoning on the subject. I typically find people that dismiss voting with their wallet fundamentally misunderstand microeconomics but either way, both points (yours and mine) are definitely not hills I'd die on.
I think the general point is that the financial hurt that I can put on a company is peanuts compared to someone with deep pockets (ie: shareholders & businesses). Even if I were to get all my friends, family and direct coworkers to alter a shopping behaviour, it's unlikely to result in any change.
On the other hand, if I were to take that same group and be able to pressure my political representatives to do something about it (as we frequently see in California), then something may change. Similarly, me quitting my job out of disgust with a non-recycling policy won't get any attention, but if I can get my union to take it up, then the company will listen.
TL;DR: a person can't make change, a group of people can.
Your hill - first two sentences absolutely, in UK so no chikfila.
Love the drops-fill-buckets mindset!
Piggy backing on your comment: for folks wanting to put their money to more ethical use, here are some resources:
- Change your banking account: https://bank.green/
- Donate to charities: https://www.charitynavigator.org/
- Vote for right candidates: https://www.lcv.org/congressional-scorecard/
- Join the SHIFT is a general one for climate stuff: https://jointheshift.earth/
These are mostly US and climate focused resources since that's where I am. Would love to see other people's resources too!
Dating apps are inherently dehumanizing
They're also profit-incentivized to keep people single and on their platform for as long as possible.
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.
The fact that you can filter by height but not weight says it all
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.
I want to share my photos of our trip with you, but I don't want you to upload them to Google, or apple, or amazon, or meta, or any social media.
If it's a pic of you, fine, do whatever you want. But please don't take my whole album and store it in your google photos.
Edit: to maybe disambiguate, I go on a trip with someone else, we both take photos/videos using our own devices, and then afterwards we are exchanging what we took. Not like, me sharing photos with someone who didn't even go on the trip.
That seems logical.
Seems a bit creepy doing that..
I think it makes total sense from their POV if I'm not posting my shit publicly and they want to be able to view it in the future. I will gladly make a copy of their photos of the trip for my own record, but I will store it in a way that only I have access.
Getting married without a prenup in today’s world is foolish. Ask marriage counselors and they will in general tell you to get a prenup. A prenup is wrote by two people and both have their own attorney. Anyone who refuses to get one or even discuss one is someone you should run from. A prenup details how a divorce AND how a marriage should run.
Also anyone who wants operating system or device level age verification doesn’t understand how bad things will get if we do that. It’s only about mass surveillance and selling of your data. It does nothing to protect kids.
I have heard that before and I think the same as before I started my marriage: I will not start a marriage with planning how it might end. Also half of the assets is fair, ailment is fair. It stings when it happens but it's fair. I say that as a man with a good income.
I knew the deal when I married my wife. I think part of marrying someone is the fact that ending the marriage is shitty. So you better be careful who you marry.
I mean this. I do truly wish you the best, but the reality is close to 50% of marriages end in divorce. With the exception of forced marriages, all of them started thinking it would last forever. Way too many divorces end with one side getting screwed. “Just be careful of who you marry” is a recipe for failure when taken it context of the above statistics. Many people are trapped in bad marriages and can’t really get a divorce without getting screwed. So that 50% number should really be higher. Every walk of life we plan for the worst and hope for the best, or at least if a person is paying attention they do. Marriage is a huge item. Plan for the worst (prenup) and hope you never need it. Either that or risk winding up as a statistic.
If you don’t get one (and are told to get one) then get screwed and look back realizing had you gotten a prenup things wouldn’t have been as bad…. Well I’ll have a hard time finding sympathy.
Also the half the assets sound fair. Until you realize that it’s possible to lose more then half without a prenup.
I thought the 50% stat didn't filter out repeat offenders.
You're correct. First-time marriage has a 41% divorce rate (in the USA, at least).
(US context) The advice I got was that every marriage has a prenup. If the couple doesn't write it, it's just the default prenup their state wrote and it's going to be crap for both people.
That’s exactly correct
I remember a science fiction story where the marriage license has a seven year term and has to be renewed periodically.
That’s an interesting concept
"The Puppet Masters" by Robert A. Heinlein. There's an acceptable movie version of the book. The marriage scene isn't in the movie, though.
This idea is also in the beta canon Star Trek novels. If I remember correctly, it was the Vanguard series with Carol Marcus and James Kirk dissolving their marriage.
I can't comment on the prenups as I have never even considered marriage.
I am not disagreeing with your opinion on device level age verification. I am interested in what you think we should do to protect kids online. There has been a lot of talk about this being the wrong way to do that but very little discussion on what other methods we could do.
Would you be opposed to a "this computer is used by a child" checkbox and just that true/false would be passed to apps?
Taking a car for a 3km distance is unconscionable when walking or cycling are valid options.
Driving less than the speed limit will not kill you.
What if I'm taking my car to the car wash?
French cuisine is extremely overrated
Sacré Bleu!!!
my hill: when i post an asklemmy, i place my answer as a comment, so the thread doesn't become a bunch of replies to my personal answer, so each reply to the post relates directly to the original question
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
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 religion 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.
It goes so far beyond the realm of fiction; Americans are literally exporting this asshatter to latin america
I think Bernie was an idealist and I don’t buy in to a lot of his ideas while appreciating his work to create real change. Don’t crucify me for this.
I wholeheartedly believe there is an alternate timeline where Bernie won the 2016 democratic nomination and won the presidency and we avoided all this shit.
you are willing to die on this hill, but not through crucifixion?
Give them a break. They're not Jesus.
I think I agree, but I really don't think it matters. What, are Trump's ideas coherent or something? What I trust is Bernie's overall intent. He's kind of unique in this way because of his decades of consistent political sctivism. Had Bernie been elected in 2016 somehow and we got 8 years of Bernie, the US would still be a capitalist society. It just might be slightly better one.
I think a great example of naive ideas that have dominated political discussion on the left is student loan forgiveness. Like I'm not opposed - if PPP loan forgiveness is acceptable then student loan forgiveness is infinitely more acceptable. No brainer. But the complete lack of discussion about structural reform to the college tuition situation that causes people to need such huge student loans in the first place makes me think that the whole issue was to some extent controlled opposition.
You could have gotten 100 percent student loan forgiveness - the whole thing passed and done and student loans would immediately start to pile up again the next day. Probably even higher tuition too.
I ditched my smartphone over 5 years ago, and will NEVER go back. In fact, I don't have a phone of any kind. They are surveillance/psyop devices, and they are turning people into biological robots. The scifi show Dollhouse is basically where this is all heading.
You are my kind of people. I will check that show.
I do this too. It's not even hard if you live in a rural area, since you're in good company.
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
Water usage but in the opposite direction. Yes, I'm going to take a bath. No, I don't think it makes any actual difference ; go blow up a factory or a data centre if you care so much about water. (Or maybe do it even if you don't, it never hurts !)
People should be able to transfer their vote of their first preference didn't win. Sorry democrats, being forced to vote for you isnt democracy.
Mathematical Problems with Winner-Takes-All Voting Systems.
I'm Dutch; I can vote for 16 different parties or so... None of those represent me well, and the one I'm voting for never wins anywhere close :(
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.
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.
Yes it does, if you want to be good at it.
If its a job, you dont need another job, whoch means all your time and effort can be used for being a great artist.
ALL information, except what you can hold in your brain,
Nice try, FBI - you are NOT getting your grubby little hands on my passwords!
I’ll take your RSA encryption keys, thanks
That is redundant. Everything would be public.
Suits are weird, they feel old and out dated, like cosplaying a 20th century business boy in grandpa's pajamas. Multiple layered long sleeve shirt, jacket, and trousers doesn't make sense for the majority of weather in most cities or even more if you're inside temp controlled buildings more often. In the winter you want something heavier like denim or fleece lined or water resistant, and in the summer you want breathable fabric, wicking, single layer, shorts, etc. Overcoats don't need backup jackets, and some of the people who did wear it like a uniform last century weren't people you'd want to emulate.
If you want to be a member of Busines Suit Club you have to wear a suit. Membership has some benefits but the downside is less personal comfort.
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 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.
I’m not going to eat a fucking hot dog, I don’t care how much everyone else pretends to enjoy them, they’re a crime against food and decency.
Eating a hot dog on a Friday violates all major religions' rules on food.
Islam: No pork
Hinduism: No beef
Buddhism: No meat
Catholicism: No meat on Fridays
Discordianism: No hot dog buns
Eating a hot dog on a Friday violates all major religions' rules on food.
Nice. That's the best part.
Plenty of Buddhists eat meat. Often
And plenty of Catholics eat meat on Fridays.
I think they did away with that rule lol. Plenty of Hindus love cheeseburgers.
It's still a rule in catholicism, though a lot of them don't give a shit. There's also some hilarious exemptions as for example beavers and capybara are counted as fish.
I guess Friday is going to be Chili-Cheesedog day for me for here on out.
Are you not dismissing every other type of sausage, or did just not consider them? Because if this is about lips & assholes, almost all of them are all lips & assholes.
It’s not so much lips and assholes, I know far too much about processed foods to be bothered by that, it’s the taste of a hot dog. They don’t taste like meat, they don’t taste like food, they taste specifically and mercilessly of hot dog. I’m not opposed to a good sausage, but most sausages aren’t good because for some reason almost all of them have to have fucking fennel seeds in them.
Have you tried the Bacon SPAM? It tastes kinda like a cross between hot dog and bologna.
That can go straight to hell.
That's the strongest point in their favor.
I tell ya you're not missing much.
even the best hot dog is, well,l still just a hotdog.
I’ve had hot dogs, I know what I’m missing and I do not miss it.
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.
I hate doing dishes like that anyway. I just scrub them one at a time under running water after letting them soak in whatever water can fill in. I don’t really think of the sink as a sanitary item regardless of how much you clean it. The drain is always going to be gross.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option.
The distinction is important because perpetuating their only acceptable option despite it being demonstrably ineffective indicates that child welfare is not the primacy concern in play.
Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.
And yet, despite it not being necessarily true it is absolutely true in every practical sense in reality.
I simply don't understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.
I simply don't understand why you insist on taking political talking points as 100 percent sincere instead of looking at the tangible actions being taken in this space.
Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.
You don't even know what to do with this definition after quoting it. If course I "blame" them for voting how they do. Is assigning someone responsibility for their actions "demonizing" them? Lol. You're lost in the sauce bruh.
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.
Other countries are able to have this discussion in far more healthy and productive ways. Instead of being content with your one insight that prolife and pro-choice are talking past each other, I suggest you ask yourself why that is, and why this positioning of the discussion is basically unique to the US. There's a whole wide world out there.
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.
Just force women to have abortions. Now you are undermining their bodily autonomy AND killing babies for satan (or whatever) Both sides happy.
/joke
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.
I believe a woman should have the right to abort the child as long as its under 18*12 months.
/s
Private ownership of vehicles should be banned. Most people's cars are unused for 90% of the day, which is insanely inefficient. Have a pool of cars they anyone can hire just for the time they need them. It would be cheaper for everyone and there wouldn't be three fuck ugly cars in front of every house.
Problem is that almost everyone is using them at the exact same time every day to get from and to work.
Public transit is more efficient at moving a large number of people at once in similar directions.
Communauto and it's competitors are going strong in Montreal.
It would be cheaper for everyone and there wouldn’t be three fuck ugly cars in front of every house.
They already exist, it's called taxis. Or you can hire cars. But there still not cheaper, cause corporate needs number to go higher.
I'd kill myself right now if I was stuck sharing a car for the rest of my life with my neighbor who literally eats shit.
who literally eats shit
?
In my area, as in many others, we had a few e-scooter rental companies for a few months. They pretty much just weren't viable because people didnt care for the stuff. Basically if its rented, people will only care in so far as they can be held responsible.
Additionally, public transport doesn't really work here because we dont have the population density.
That principle is important.
In any system where goods ( of some kind ) are not owned by the people using them, then you have to make those goods near-impossible-to-break, which is part of where communist Brutalism aesthetic comes from.
There was a book by a shelled-moluscs scientist who was born blind: he sees through his fingertips.
He's the one who pointed that principle out, having lived in communism for part of his life, & once the principle's understood, it can't be unseen.
Know somebody who cares for their tools like jewelry?
They'd all be destroyed, pronto, in communism.
That's the price that gets paid when nobody owns what they're using.
And THAT principle, means that it then becomes possible to design means-sharing-systems that can work.
The e-scooter rental systems that many cities now have, is 1 example: idiotproof, indestructible, & they enable significant improvement in the city.
But consider contractors who need to be able to get anywhere, with their tools..
public transport may break their work.
Rurally, not having a vehicle's .. often suicide.
& if the city's designed like US cities, towns, & villages, where they engineer it to break any other form of transport, then you cannot get to the supermarket without a car, from many locations.
It takes much more whole-systems orientation, to get it right, than what the US has been doing..
< shruggeth >
just some perspectives, is all..
_ /\ _
Nobody owns anything in communism?
Your tools would be destroyed pronto?
Whats with the sneaky nonsense in an otherwise reasonable comment...
clutches toothbrush
[off topic]
Have you tried replacing the grass with local flora?
Also, what your family uses is a drop in the bucket compared to what your local industry wastes.
There are probably a dozen or more open air, private swimming pools that sit filled, full of chemicals, and unused 350 days a year, within walking distance of your place.
I checked out the gym near me, lifetime, who charge $330 a month. They have a heated Olympic size swimming pool outdoors year-round, in a climate that gets a fair amount of snow in the winter. So that’s what rich people do with our resources.
As far as water, yeah. Even in very arid places, it’s permitted to do agriculture to grow things like hay and use 80% of the local water supply. Even better, there’s a trend in the US where people from places like Saudi Arabia grow the hay, use our water, and then export it.
The people at that gym aren't 'rich.'
The rich folks are the ones with their own Olympic sized pools.
It’s just a matter of degree. Sure, we could take someone who has a net worth of $30 million and say well, that’s nothing, some people have 30 billion. People who are paying over $300 a month for a gym membership have a lot more money than people who are trying to afford $25 a month.
A frog is much bigger than an ant.
Both get crushed by a bulldozer.
The 0.01% are the 'rich.'
No, those are the super rich. Say I'm battling some powers on a local level. I have a net worth of $120k and an income of $45k a year. They have a $3 million ranch, net worth of $15 million, basically own the local sheriff and town council. But they're not "rich" because there's someone elsewhere with more money than them?
I’m very anti-lawn and would love replacing it with native wild flowers. We unfortunately don’t own the house, a friend does. I may throw down some clover seed, which uses less water as a small defiant act.
And, yes, our city has the pools, at least a dozen 18 hole golf courses and three day a week watering. Absurd since we’re on the verge of drought every year. Hopefully the powers that be known what they’re doing
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.
Could be differentiated in basic needs vs national residents rights.
You'd just need to authenticate yourself as being from the country and then you get the usual care.
Foreigners get the basic needs and anything beyond needs to be compensated by themself or their insurance.
Aka: As it's already done.
Neil Postman was right.
Our educational models and methods are changing for the worse.
TV and the internet are terrible mediums for public or political discourse and this has exacerbated many of our existing issues.
Our culture has become more shallow and has started to lack something profound because of how we utilize technology for education, business, and entertainment.
Things will not improve until we change our relationship with these technologies.
EDIT: several words.
"Deserving", "credit", "blame", "justice", and related concepts are all collective hallucinations. We're all observers riding around powerless in robotic meat chassis and the part of us that experiences every bad and good thing we'll ever experience is completely disconnected from the part of us that makes any decisions. There's no "justice" in making sure someone who committed some atrocity experiences negative consequences. The "justice" system should be focused solely on rehabilitation and protecting people -- innocent or otherwise. Governments trying to be in the business of "punishing" people is misguided at best.
In pretty much the opposite direction, my hill is that "right","wrong", "blameworthiness" and "praiseworthyness" are concepts that people are in general allergic to critical thought towards, and they are EXACTLY the concepts that people should be approaching in order to have a better life and to make a better world.
Cashiers here have started saying "have a good rest of your day" instead of "have a good afternoon" or something.
It never used to be a phrase.
Its very common now.
I understand that language evolves and that this is probably used often enough to be dramatically "appropriate" now, but i just hate it.
Some how the grammar is just discordant and I find it jarring every time.
Of course, I dont tell cashiers about this grievance, because I appreciate them and I understand this is just me being weird and I try to get through my day offending the fewest service workers as possible.
As someone who used to work retail, I feel this. I have trouble socially and just want one phrase to mindlessly close out every interaction. I started with "have a good day," but as the day progressed, I would get more funny looks or comments like "...what's left of it." I'm sorry, is after 6pm no longer today? Today is a day, right? I ended up using "have a good one." While less formal, the funny looks and comments stopped.
People are funny. They think it's strange that I say have a good day as it's starting to get dark, but don't bat an eye at the fact that I'm only wishing them a good day. What about tomorrow? "I hope today goes well for you, but fuck tomorrow." Is the idea that they expect to see me every day? I deserve days off, too. I'm not going to be here tomorrow to wish you a good day, so maybe I should tailor it to my schedule to make sure you're covered until I see you again. "I have tomorrow off, so have a good couple days!" No, I'd have to change that every day... maybe "Have a good time until I see you again!" is better. What happens when I change jobs? I don't think I'll see them again, so I need to make sure their days are good from here on out? "Have a nice life!" That's worse somehow.
This reminds me of the end of sophomore year in high school. We were signing yearbooks, "Have a nice summer, hope you don't drown!" Thanks for the positive wishes, but now I'm going to worry about drowning every time I go swimming!
Oddly enough, I've met someone whose peeve was 'Have a good one!'
They're like, 'Have a good what!? Day? Life? Colonoscopy? Be specific!'
Still my go to, though.
Have a good two?
May the rest of your your day/evening/afternoon be as delightful as you!
On one hand, youre welcome to do whatever you must to get through the day. As i mentioned above, I dont want to be a dick about it.
That said, the convention has always been to say, "have a good <time of day>".
I hear that you dont want to invest the effort to compute the time of day, and thats kinda what I hear when some one says "have a good rest of your day".
If you compare it to "have a good day", it's longer and awkwarder, and the extra words are to avoid...the scenario of someone complaining that part of the day has already passed and can no longer be nice?
In the same vein of unnecessary specificity: I hate when waiters ask "how is everything tasting?" I have to resist replying that it tastes great but it's cold and the texture makes me want to gag.
People who work Customer facing jobs are so burnt out, they can hardly keep track of what time it is. The phrase can be used any time of day without more thinking.
Paid vacations are not required in the USA.
Similarly, I find it slightly annoying when you thank a cashier and they respond by saying you're welcome. This exchange was purely transactional (I paid for my items and you did your job), so please don't imply that you did me some sort of personal favor. But like you, I won't say anything about it to the cashier because their job is already hard enough.
I don't get this one. You started it going with the thank you. now they have to say your welcome.
When you thank a cashier, that's the standard polite way to close the interaction and both of you understand you're not actually expressing gratitude to them for simply doing their job.
Responding with "you're welcome" implies the settlement of a social debt (i.e., yes, I did you a favor and your gratitude is acknowledged) that wasn't part of that purely transactional exchange. It's an exaggerated response that comes across as presumptuous. You thanking the cashier doesn't indebt them, but their "you're welcome" implies that you owed them.
BUT that's not their intent, they're just mindlessly saying it because that's how their manager or grandma or someone taught them to respond and they never stopped to think about it. So I find it mildly annoying, but I'd never point it out and neither of us wants that discussion.
I mean, I'd argue that "Thank you" always implies acknowledging a social debt; if you don't feel there was a social debt someone just assisted you with, I probably wouldn't say, "Thank you."
"Have a good day" would just as equally and politely close the interaction while not implying you were just assisted with a social debt.
"Have a good day" would just as equally and politely close the interaction while not implying you were just assisted with a social debt.
I agree and I use that all the time.
Even if "thank you" acknowledges a social debt then you're not indebting the cashier by thanking them. Being told you're welcome implies that you owed the cashier when they simply did their job.
Anyway, apparently I'm in the minority on this and that's fine!
that is a very weird way of looking at it. "thank you" has always been a way of expressing gratitude.
yes, they may simply just be doing their job, but at the same time you are also doing what you as a customer should be doing: place your items on the counter, pay, get your stuff, and leave. there's no need for you to thank someone; there's no need for any words of exchange.
"thank you" may be a standard polite phrase, but so is "you're welcome" or "no problem". you were polite to them, so let them be polite to you by acknowledging your expression of gratitude.
you were polite to them, so let them be polite to you by acknowledging your expression of gratitude
But it's not an expression of gratitude in this context unless they did something beyond their job duties. Thanking them is just the universal polite way of ending the exchange and most customers do it. This interaction is routine and necessary to complete a purchase, and customers aren't expressing genuine gratitude just because the cashier did their job.
You expressed gratitude. You may not have meant it, but you've expressed it nonetheless. It doesn't matter if the opposite party deserved it or not; "thank you" is an expression of gratitude, and the only polite ways they have of answering that is "you're welcome" or "no problem".
exactly. THEIR MANAGER! get why you should give them some slack now?
both of you understand you're not actually expressing gratitude to them for simply doing their job
Then order from DeathsRUs.com
By saying "Thank you" and "You're welcome" you're expressing mutual willingness to end the transaction in a civilized way. It's just a standard politeness, a phrase. No need to read into the original meanings. Nowadays and in the context of shopping you're just both saying everything went well and you're finishing the transaction in peace, there's no implication of anything - meanings evolve.
The Sound of Music is not a Christmas movie.
My wife and her family and a whole bunch of Canadians all think it is and I am so flummoxed by it.
I love that movie but it’s the first time I’m hearing it being referred to as a Christmas movie. Iirc there isn’t even any Christmas celebration in it?
no!! It takes place around the Salzburg festival which is in…July I think?
Is the first Rambo movie a Christmas movie?
I'll stand over here on my hill and say that Return to Oz IS a Christmas movie.
I haven’t seen it! What makes it a Christmas movie?
I like the theory that the fellowship of the ring is a Christmas movie because if you read the books, they use a Gregorian calendar and if you add up travel time etc, apparently you can prove that the fellowship left Rivendell on December 25!
Just in response to your annoyance, I have found women ive been around tend to have more of a "fuck other people and the climate" attitude than most of the guys (its usually not that abrasive, just more of a "why wouldn't I water my grass? We have the water" attitude). Especially if there's kids, they dont care about anything else (that's just biology I guess). Please dont take this as sexist, it is just something ive observed.
I get very annoyed with people wasting unnessesarily and using amazon.
I'm curious as to where you live (city, suburb, etc) and what the age group of the people are
The most average. Middle america, 30s to 50s age.
my favorite is the 'love to travel' types. point out that their trips to antarctic are toxic for the environment there and they lose it on you. because cute pics with penguins are worth it!
Yeah that is unfortunate. I like traveling too but usually drive. No matter what you do travelling is bad for climate.
What really pisses me off is asshole tourists who litter or otherwise make nature unenjoyable (massive douche hiking while blaring annoying music out of a Bluetooth pill)
Then again billionaires fly their jets to work every day and burn up millions of kwh daily for their 5 properties they own. So I think we can have a couple travel vacations a year.
there is literally no possible usecase for Generative AI
Demonstrably false: GenCast, a Diffusion model (and thus GenAI), is freely available here as source code to train it yourself if you so wish. ERA5 data is free to download.
It's cheaper and more accurate in both result and resolution to run a classic Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) model.
I will fully agree that all the slop that's being generated is shite and a waste of time though.
Lulu’s Bakery on Union Turnpike in Fresh Meadows makes the best chocolate frosted doughnut in NY and possibly the US. I haven’t even had THAT many chocolate frosted doughnuts around the country, but I don’t know how someone makes a chocolate frosted doughnut better than that.
If I leave now I can be there in 5.5 hours according to my gps.
Communism is good, necessary, and achievable.
Fuck AI.
Religious people are one the biggest reasons as to why we are where we are today. Anyone that tries to "respect" these delusions are also culpable. It's the best invention to sedate the masses in their cage since sliced manna.
I bet you cannot even define religion.
"Existential belief/claim in delusion with no evidence or basis in reality; A tool for the rich to exploit and sedate the masses." That's what I hope to change the definition to when people wake up. Obviously since definitions are descriptive and not prescriptive that isn't what it is now. "An organized supernatural belief in a god/gods in regard to the creation of the universe." Is what I would assume more fits how people use the word today. Even then I feel that excludes delusions such as Buddhism or individual 'spiritual' delusions.
Skip to your proselytizing, what delusion are you Pascal's wagering your life on?
Right, everyone who disagrees with you is a delusional sky-fairy worshipper. I'm not religious, dude. I'm also not suffering from religious trauma. Clean your shit up.
Clearly you CANNOT define what religion even is. But boy do you ever have strong opinions about something YOU CANNOT EVEN DEFINE. Your damage is just flowing out from every sentence. Your rage cannot change the world, but once you fix yourself, you can start to try.
You are illiterate and I hope you get better 😘
How do you explain to yourself that religious and spiritual people are the drivers of mainstream politics and new political ideologies, while atheists/modernists/disenchanted are pretty much either irrelevant or clinging desperately to their position of vaning power, paralyzed, and often depressed?
As another comment said this is a fallacy. This detracts from my original argument, and assumes I stated any of this in my main point. If you have questions about the argument ask questions about the direct things I said in my argument. Not shit I did not say an inkling about. Your making assumptions on positions I do not have.
Let me bite for the sake of biting.
Now if I take your loaded question as a claim, I would like a source for the hasty generalization "atheists/modernists/disenchanted are pretty much either irrelevant or clinging desperately to their position of vaning power, paralyzed, and often depressed" Part. Show me the stats.
"Religious and spiritual people are the drivers of mainstream politics and new political ideologies" That is sooo rich. Religious people have been at the front lines of halting progress across the spectrum. I guess you are right they are the drivers of mainstream political change, not good political change might I add. Whenever they do change for the good it's because real progressives fought tooth and nail to change it on a state level. Only then do these churches catch up, and even then you have members that don't agree/believe in the change. Some key examples of movements religions have been heinous on: Woman's suffrage, Slavery Abolitionism, Abortion, LGBTQIA+ rights, Gaza, Access contraception/sex education, the list goes fucking on and on. Don't even get me started on the dark money organized religions put in to get vile legislation passed.
I'm not trying to assume anything but the way you throw depression in the mix puts a bad taste in my mouth. Like it has anything to do with the other things you stated, religious people are depressed too. It isn't secularist exclusive. The way religion handles depression is "deal with it god knew you could handle it", "that's not depression it's the devil", or even the more extreme "depression/suicide is a sin". So if depressed religious people aren't coming out and talking about their mental health all to often compared to atheists it doesn't surprise me. I'll give you a chance to correct the record and we can move on, as I do not want to detract from our argument.
Religions allow for people to discriminate just on the premise of "well it's what I believe". They think because it's their belief it doesn't have to be demonstrated or tested. Why is your religion/belief true? "Because my ancient text of choice says it's true" ok well why is your religious text of choice true? "Because my religion/belief says it's true".
happy to be presented with counterevidence
This is an argument from ignorance
logical fallacies are out of context when used in a normal conversation rather than a scientific debate. It's just a way to escape and kill the conversation.
Cyprus
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
hopefully pacifism.
you took that literally, didn't you
you got it but I am a bit serious.
Maybe more of an online/fandom type of nobody rather than IRL, but I LOVE Sonic The Hedgehog ( Sonic '06 ) so much despite all the glitches because I think the glitches add so much to the game. Cannot convince me that bug riddled mess isn't a very beautiful sight to behold.
anything i know to be absolutely correct i will either not insert my opinion or i will take a shit on top of the hill so that nobody else tries to climb it
LED headlights can fuck right off, and if you defend them then you are either an asshole or a dumbass who couldn't think about it for twenty seconds and see the impact.
You can buy night glasses to help with this bullshit. They don't reduce the shine so much but they stop you from being blinded after being hit in the face with what is bright even for high beams.
I won't rape, torture, and murder vulnerable individuals. Call me radical but if I can be happy, healthy, and enjoy life without doing those things to animals, I'm not going to fucking do those things to animals.
Spaceships for everybody.
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.
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.
*Chaucer laughs from the grave*
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.
Bringing new regulations to old infrastructure always makes a sacrifices.
Younger kids and adults with those kids are fine, I'm happy to let them pass.
I've never seen an adult riding on the sidewalk alone where I live.
Teens riding those electric scooters while staring at their phones, OTH... I mean, of course I get out the way, because I don't want to get hit, but I have the intrusive thought of pushing them over when they pass.
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.
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.