[Serious] What's your hot take?

TehBamski@lemmy.world to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml – 66 points –
287

Hot sauces should be required by law to list their Scoville range (SHU) on their packaging.

Fuckin facts, yo, I’m tired of searching up the sauce to try to get a gauge of wherever the fuck the sauce actually is, as opposed to its marketing wank wanting to convince me I’m chowing down on neutron star, despite it really being around room temp unflavored jello.

100% agree. I want to know whether I'm increasing, decreasing, or maintaining my heat threshold.

Parents' jobs aren't to protect their kids. It's to make sure that their kids are sufficiently prepared for the world when the kids grow up.

There seems to be this rising trend of parents being overprotective of their children, even to the point of having parental controls enabled for children even as old as the late teens. My impression has always been that these children are too sheltered for their age.

I grew up in the "age of internet anarchism," where goatse was just considered a harmless prank to share with your friends and liveleaks was openly shared. Probably not the best way of growing up, to be fair, but I think we've swung so hard into the opposite direction that a lot of these children, I feel, are living in their own little bubbles.

To some degree, it honestly makes sense to me why the younger generation nowadays is so willing to post their lives on the internet. When that's the only thing you can do on the internet, that's what you'll do

I have recently learned that the new helicopter parent type is the snowplow parent - these are the ones that not only shield their kids from the world, but also fully manage their lives for them. I work for the University of California and seeing how absolutely helpless these kids are is scary.

I'm in the UC system as well. It's both concerning and amusing how much college students nowadays go to their parents for permission on minor things. I get it, to some degree. Respect for your parents and all that. But some degree of autonomy would be helpful at that age

If you’ve spent any amount of time among people who went to / are in college in their early 20s, and people who were working in their late teens and early twenties, it becomes clear that college arranges for the students to have a managed-for-them life to a degree that I actually think is severely harmful to them. It’s basically a big day care. Education is fuckin fantastic, I’m not saying it’s not, but the nature of the way your life is organized within it to me I think is very bad for people.

Like yes you know integrals, very good, but e.g. I spoke to a guy who had not paid his phone bill for months, who somehow still had phone service but was genuinely very confused about how the bills he was getting now could have gotten as high as they were. No matter how many times I tried to explain to him, I couldn’t get it across. I finally just gave up the endeavor.

Part of the issue with the value of college isn't that it educated, but that it acted like an ordeal to overcome and filtered out people who didn't have the makings of being a leader. Not all of that is due to educational ability.

Parents jobs arent to protect their kids

I get you don’t mean this so broadly but you lose all nuance with this statement.

Protect them from every minor mistake or risk that could ever possibly happen, and smothering them? Sure.

Someone about to stab your kid? Protect them from predators? Protect them from various risks and hazards in life which every parent should be teaching them?

  • dont get into strangers cars
  • dont let strangers into the house
  • look both ways when crossing the road

It wasn’t the comment that lacked nuance; just your reading.

All the stuff you added went without saying.

Parents jobs arent to protect their kids.

What the fuck else does that mean? If you want to believe you can read minds and assume what a person is talking about, whatever.

But if someone makes a statement, maybe take it at face value rather than “ah yes they must mean something else”

fucking idiot

I’m pretty autistic, so you’re not allowed to write this off as “people using magic communication I can’t understand because I’m smart” or whatever your model of the current situation is.

When a person says it is not a parent’s job to protect their kids, you already know what it means. It’s right there in your three bullet point.

  • dont get into strangers cars
  • dont let strangers into the house
  • look both ways when crossing the road

If a parent’s job were protecting their kids, these would read:

  • Don’t let your kids near roads or cars
  • Don’t give your kids control over the door
  • Don’t let your kids cross roads

Like, if I was given care of a dog for a week while their owners went on vacation, and my job were to “protect the dog”, I wouldn’t be putting the dog in any of the situations where its own choices were the source of its safety.

Are you ready to stop pretending that you don’t see?

The first line of my reply literally says I dont think this is what you mean, BUT …. I very clearly stated I assume that isnt exactly what the commenter meant. The rest of my comment is to clarify what the poster defined as “protection”.

If someone came up to me and asked protect something, contextually yes obviously I understand that.

That isnt the situation here. The comment chain is someone with a “hot take” on what “parents protecting children” means. It being a hot take I feel it is completely valid to put aside any assumption that the commenter is talking about “well obviously I mean protect them from x y z”. Because its a potentially unpopular hot take. It’s not a common idea in society.

Unless you can read minds it is very possible this commenter meant it literally. IE how kids are raised in the film 300. “Heres a stick. go fight a wolf kid”.

Im not writing it off. I assumed what they meant but followed up for clarification. Did you just expect replies to be “agree” or “disagree” with zero further discussion?

Oh you’re right. It is a hot take, so it is likely that they mean the thing one wouldn’t expect.

I thought you'd be talking about letting kids climb up high into trees, going into the city on their own, let them hang out at the skatepark without supervision, stuff like that.

But no, it's about computers and kids not being able to see goatse. Lol. That's lemmy i guess.

It’s tule 10. Don’t mess with kids when they’re gazing at Goatse

On the other hand I owe my career in IT to learning how to bypass the parental controls my parents set up and cover my tracks. That got me started in computers really early.

If you let your cat outside in the Americas (or anywhere cats haven’t lived for thousands of years) unsupervised I’m going to assume one of the following is true: you don’t care if your cat dies, and/or you don’t care about wildlife. Even if you live in a place with zero predators, why the hell are you trusting a CAT with road safety?

Saying this as someone who grew up with parents that let our cats live (and die, a lot) that way. And as someone who has seen two friends lose cats to coyotes in the past year. And also interrupted an attack on someone’s pet by a coyote. It’s been a bad fucking year here for coyotes.

In Australia I can't tell you how frustrating this is. People are so fucking selfish.

I feel like this is slowly changing (based on no real evidence).

At least some councils are CATching up.

The new suburbs where I am are cat containment areas so that's something. But I'm in an older suburb. Where all the wildlife is quite established. And I keep finding lizards and parrots ripped apart. My home cameras pick up the cats that visit all night.

My cats were born an outdoor cat and I'd rather they touched some grass and lived an actual life rather than be stuck inside all day even if they die earlier. I'm sure they would too.

Wildlife argument is valid though. They kill some good (rats, mice), but I can't justify them killing birds and lizards.

Plus, my (indoor) cat can't help but have a loud, boisterous conversation with any cat that wanders through my yard. Usually at 2am while I'm trying to sleep.

Thank you for pointing out that this is only an issue for places where wild cats have been non-native.

If your political opinion begins with "why don't we just..." then its a bad political opinion.

If we could just, we would have already just. If you think you're the only one with the capacity to see a simple answer - newsflash, you're not a political genius. Its you who doesn't understand the complexity of the problem.

My partner lacked political engagement until his 30s for reasons so he occasionally has these hot takes. But he expresses them to me and I do feel bad because he's not coming at it from an arrogant perspective. It's ignorance, some naivete and also exasperation at a whole lot of shit things.

I have to gently explain to him why XYZ isn't that simple or black and white, or why his idea doesn't work - and the answer to that, 9 times out of 10, is 'because money/rich people/greed/lobbyists/nimbyism'.

I'm just slowly chipping away at his innocence and it feels bad.

Its great that you're helping to inform him! I have found the people who know the most about politics and global issues tend to talk less and listen more.

My responses to him are always prefaced with a big sigh. Because whatever I'm about to tell him is negative. And he often concludes with 'so how can you care about this/why do you give a shit if it's pointless' and I'm finding it harder and harder to answer that question.

Ignorance truly is bliss

Adam Savage had a bit where he pointed out there is practically zero times when to you should start a sentence with "why don't you just". My first instinct is to patiently listen & respond but I'm slowly turning into "why don't you just stop, think & rephrase that"

I've always interpreted "why don't we just X?" as a shorter way of expressing "I think I would like X. Is this a good idea? If not, why? If yes, what are the barriers to making it happen?"

My hot take: You shouldn't downvote comments you disagree with in a thread asking for hot takes.

I have always upvoted comments I disagree with if they are using good arguments. I save downvotes for hate and bad faith.

It's a shame that this needs to be a "hot take", I was hoping we'd be leaving that shit behind on Reddit.

I really like that you can view who upvoted/downvoted a post on Lemmy. Makes for some interesting analysis on some posts.

I think this should apply in general, not just in this thread. Down votes are reserved for comments that do not positively contribute to the conversation.

No one authentically hates the word moist. There's no evidence then anyone disliked the word before Friends made an episode about it. Everyone since that has either been parroting that episode or someone who, in turn, parroted the episode.

Either these people saw it and decided it was an interesting facet to add to their personality, or it was the first time they've ever consciously thought about how a word feels and sounds and that shattered their ignorance and spoiled a perfectly good word.

There was a Friends episode about it?

I don't remember a friends episode about this either. I do remember it being on how I met your mother though so possibly the person you're replying to was thinking of that.

Slurp is an infinitely worse word than moist.

Personally I dislike squelch, mulch, ask, just a ton of words, but I dislike them because they way they fell in my mouth. Either they're hard to pronounce or they don't feel nice in my mouth.

Turns out liquids of unusual viscosity is an excellent heuristic for things you shouldn’t put in your mouth.

The vast majority of people whining about the current political landscape have done absolutely nothing IRL to remedy this (tangibly supporting good candidates, running for office themselves, etc.)

supporting good candidates

Oh yes! Good candidates!.... Who are those, again?

Places of religious worship and formal teaching (e.g. churches, and Sunday schools) should be treated like bars and porn. You need to be an adult to access bars and porn because children do not fully understand what is happening or the consequences of being there. Churches (etc) are the same and there should be a legal age limit.

It should also be socially unacceptable to talk about religious opinions in front of kids, just like most people don't swear or talk dirty, etc.

I agree with schools teaching kids "about" religions, just like sex and drugs. Teaching facts is good, preaching (aka indoctrination) is not.

Lemmy is left leaning but downvotes anything that suggests poll numbers are slipping for Biden, or if people are unsatisfied with his performance. It’s news! Are y’all just downvoting it because you don’t like it?

Don't you know, the downvote button is the dislike button, on pretty much every platform. Also, upvote is agree button. They have nothing to do with whether a comment is relevant to the topic or not.

Lemmy.world and Lemmy.ca tend to be right-leaning even if they have some Leftist comms. The fediverse still appeals to leftists, but liberals have their own enclaves.

There's no ethical way to kill someone that's done nothing to you and doesn't want to die, and that's not just for humans.

I guess we could say “humane”, or “as quick and painless as possible”?

Bullshit. You wouldn't call it ethical to kill a 5 year old you see in the street just because it is done quick and painless.

Murder doesn't become ethical just because it's not also torture.

Beeing honest about mistakes you make is way better than trying to deflect or lie about them. This is true in professional and in social settings.

Own up to your mistakes, try to correct them and be open about you fucking up. Most people will respect that more than you trying to be Mr or Ms Perfect.

While I personally agree with most of what you said, I disagree with your assertion as to the reaction you'll get from peers.

We've made admitting mistakes worse than the mistake itself these days, and it's slowly unraveling accountability.

Why do I just see your name as Gloomy without the @servername?

Y'all're on the same instance is why.

Thanks, I guess I don't see many from mander out on /all lol

Edit: love the use of y'all're lmao

Lmao it's one of my favorite words. Yeah I don't see many of y'all either lol, I'm guessing it's a smaller instance which is cool.

You also may be able to change it in your settings to always display the full name btw, if you wanted. In Eternity you can for sure and I'm sure others too.

The Fedverse works in mysterious ways 🤷

If your free software communications can only be done thru US-based, proprietary options, then you are not free software. To think open source is ideal for your project, but not the tools surrounding it misses the point of trying uplift support & usage of these free sorts of projects (& this isn’t even starting with the privacy & lock-in concerns). Instead of coding around flaws in Microsoft GitHub or building Discord/Slack/Telegram bots, actually build & upstream integrations into the free options as you would like to see folks do unto your own project. Not saying you can’t have these services as an alternative, but as the only option (or the primary option to IIABH) should be shamed & definitely not considered the norm.

Also Matrix is pretty shit, where all the clients/servers run too heavy, & eventual-consistency means self-hosting storage often ballots into ‘too expensive’ which has led to de facto centralization the project cannot fix by design. Meaning Matrix is a better, but still bad chat option.

What fundemental aspect of Matrix is both causing too heavy performance degradation while also being unfixable or impossible to reimplement?

You could switch some of the problems with perf in switching away from the Python implementation server as well as Element clients but these support the most up-to-date features & the majority of users are now relying on these features that often don’t degrade graacefully.

The bigger issue is eventual consistency. Eventual consistency will not scale for small self-hosting. Every message & every attachment for every user in every chatroom they have joined must be duplicated to your server. This is why joining rooms sometmies takes 10 minutes. Even if you make this async from the client side instead of the current long wait, your server & storage are still taking the hit. A lot of small collectives had to drop their servers for performance & cost (read about yet another one today on the Techlore thread at c/privacy where now only Discord is used for realtime coms). This model is required to copycat the ability to search the entire history like the big, proprietary chat apps such as Slack/Telegram/Discord, but they are centralized so it is easier to manage—but its overuse for all announcement & trying to replace forums turns it into a black hole for information. Your small community probably does not need persistent chat like this—persistent info is lighter & easier to crawl as feeds & forums. With medium-sized servers shutting down, only the biggest & smallest hosts are still kicking with most metadata is largely centralized around Matrix.org who also hosts some of the other larger instances.

If you agree that chat can be chatter as well as ephemeral there is lightweight centralized chat in IRCv3 with TLS has most of the features you need with a longer legacy & massive choice for clients & XMPP for lightweight decentralized chat with a long legacy, client options too, & can be self-hosted in a bedroom on a toaster in comparison which increases the chances of self-hosters & decentralization. These were built in a time when we didn’t have such wasteful taste in tech since they needed to be efficient & only sip power/data in comparison both for clients & servers & storage. The bigger question IMO is what are fundamentally wrong with these two mature options that we need a new option built on unextensible JSON & Israeli Intelligence money?

Well, in their FAQ the Matrix team states that they love both IRC and XMPP and that for those whom these options perform better they wish the best of luck continuing to use them. Matrix does have some qualities they do not and they do not mean to compete with them, rather to put up bridges so as to federate between these decentralized protocols.

Personally, I want to move away from communicating through Discord with many of my friends. I do not believe neither IRC nor XMPP would entice them, but Matrix could as soon as they finish implementing their new video call capabilities. The same goes for community projects that use Discord as a replacement for forums.

Entice how? Spinning up XMPP on any hardware is simple to federate with you—& I wouldn’t wish they all self-host Matrix instances. XMPP’s jingle protocol works for voice/video & I use it self-hosted with my partner. What are the others missing considering the weight of the applications is literally felt. If you want a web client with stickers & reactions (& calling), what is Movim missing? Replacing forums is a part of the problem, not something to replicate… Movim & Libervia cover community posts that are web searchable.

I have no experience with the last two options you mentioned, but I was of the understanding that XMPP does not have video group call functionality. Also, it has been a long time since I used XMPP at all, but syncing history between sessions was not possible to me then. These are features that would be deal breakers to miss.

History / sync is known as message archive management (MAM) & every normal modern client & server supports it. OMEMO uses same double-ratchet encryption & multiple clients as Matrix (with the same old client key dropping issues sadly). By default it does not support groups you are correct, however, FOSS Jitsi (& Zoom for that matter) is powered by XMPP under the hood & can be stood up by yourself.

Personally three of my circles have opted for separate Mumble servers for voice coms (I run one of them from my living room) as video is only ever rarely needed & the system resources is minimal. Having web cams on is seen as a chore & distraction sometimes. The only time video is helpful in my experience is screen share which is different—but screensharing is the worst tool for trying to do code pairing / debugging a terminal using upterm provides a crisper view experience, lower data/system requirements, & observers can optionally drive the remote session.

Did not know about MAM, but that sounds great. I also hosted a Mumble server for my friends for over 5 years, but it was basically never used because there existed a one-stop solution (Discord) that allowed for more stuff^TM^. TIL Jitsi was powered by XMPP, thanks. I personally have no problem with fragmenting functionality between different specialized applications, but it will always be a tough sell for those I know because they believe they can have it all in their cool app.

At the end of the day, communication services usefulness are upwards limited by the people you can reach through them. The need for everything to be easy and centralized for the user (ironic with respect to server federation, I know) is what has made me so hopeful for the Matrix protocol, since it is designed for allowing this while still being decentralized at its core.

One of my longer-term goals is to integrate Mumble on XMPP (others have thought about this too) since its chat is pretty shit & needing accounts to join isn’t great but or two good foundational protocols.

XMPP is better for modularity which is why everything is at extension with means the foundations are simple & easy to implement where you can build something optimized & bespoke on it like Fornite’s coms or Nintendo’s presense. It’s a little harder to understand tho since out of the box you get almost nothing—but the big servers intended for chat like Prosody & ejabberd have sane defaults.

The centralization you are referring to seems more a client issue since the protocol & servers already ‘do the things’ but it sounds like you want a single ‘app’. For community building where you consider group calls less common, both Movim & Libervia offer more than Element (note the other Matrix clients are lacking feature parity) since they both can do integrated posts like forums—where Libervia supports calendars/events too. There’s no reason a client couldn’t exist with Jitsi or Mumble integration.

Ultimately use the right tool for you—it’s just nice to dispel myths that Matrix has some special sauce or that predecessors can’t fill the same roles (while also using less resources in all directions).

What would you use besides Matrix?

IRCv3 for accessibility if I need it to be centralized & TLS is the only useful encryption (such as a public chat room); otherwise XMPP + OMEMO for decentralized (but also is great for public chat rooms). No need to reinvent battle-tested, mature standards.

Never thought I'd find another IRC and XMPP fan on lemmy. Let's replace SSM/MMS/RCS with XMPP while we're at it.

JMP does that

Yeah I've used jmp.chat before, but I couldn't get any of the clients to work well with my pinephone's microphone. Shame, since it's the closest you're going to get to VoIP on the thing.

XMPP

Is it better? It still has a lot of problems and missing features.

I'd say its better, but not perfect.

Yeah.

I used it recently. Its actually really nice! Its fast. It also suffers from clients being weird. Although it is very stable. And extremely resource light. Apparently a single server can support 100,000 users or something. And it has distributed servers too (which is possible because it's stateless. Wish Matrix had it though)

Matrix is in my (and a lot of other people's opinion) way better for the future. The encryption is better, and there's a lot more stuff supported by it. Importantly moderation.

Dino on Linux and Conversations for Android are both amazing clients imo, but the rest I've tried are SEVERELY lacking. Especially on iOS.

I personally think the future from a technological perspective is SimpleX Chat. Fixes so many issues that plague other private IMs, however I'm waiting to switch until I see that their venture capital strategy is actually sustainable and won't enshittify it.

That's what I use actually. Very nice, but just... Matrix makes more sense for the masses.

What does simplex do? Is it a P2P thing?

Matrix is definitely closer to Discord / a platform built for communities.

SimpleX is not P2P, as I understand it messages are forwarded through a random(?, at least varying) number of servers, so no server knows the sender and recipient. The main issue it attempts to solve is a complete lack of a persistent identifier. Your "account" does not have a single address you can be messaged on (you can create ephemeral ones). You can create a new identity for each person you message, meaning you don't have to trust the people you're messaging to keep your messaging account's 'identity' secure.

I also really like how easy it is to route through proxies (esp on Android)

Here's one I get a lot of flack for that I don't bring up much

I think people trying to cook up gun control laws are targeting the wrong guns, in going after semi auto or military rifles, when they should be going after cheap handguns that have been available forever. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, and that's almost always done with a hand gun, but even if you control for that the majority of homicides with guns are done with hand guns.

Hand guns are usually relatively cheap. They are very easy to conceal. Its very common for people to walk into a bar with a holstered hand gun and make a series of bad decisions. Its too common for people to get in road rage incidents that escalate into something tragic because of a handgun in the glove box. People leave them around their house and treat them as toys that kids end up finding.

AND I would argue that handguns are not in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. They are not fighting weapons. They are for fun, personal protection, or making people feel tough without having to do any real work. They have little range and lesser power. There are are no troops in the world that deploy with handguns as a primary weapon. US military officers get them but that's more about tradition.

Yes, I'm aware that shooting incidents done with rifles would be more deadly, but the fact there would be much fewer of them at all would be a net benefit in a society that banned or severely restricted hand guns.

Problem is that most of your anti-gun folk aren't crazy, or don't want to appear as such, and so they placate the defenders of gun rights with phrases resembling "I believe we should be able to have handguns because self defense buuuuuut nobody should have semi auto rifles." Of course, the second they do ban long guns (curbing a total of 500/60,000 gun deaths a year mind you), they'll switch to "oh well clearly that didn't work so now we're taking the handguns too." It's literally by design, simply a tactic to fool those who won't bother looking into that whole "only 500 killed with long guns/yr" stat, nor the fact that 5.56 only delivers about as much energy as a hot .357mag rnd, but the Barrett .50BMG which is bolt action and therefore totally fine delivers about 10,000 more ft-lbs of energy, etc.

Besides that, the 2a protects things "in common use" according to Heller and "must have a historical precedent for bans," according to Bruen therefore handguns do fall quite under the scope of the 2a and a ban would be ruled unconstitutional immediately.

Besides that, self defense is important, and unless you suggest people start open carrying ARs, the best way to do it is to CCW a compact 9mm handgun.

Furthermore "guns shouldn't be for the poor" would help to curb crime, but at what cost? That is pure T bona-fide classism and I don't support it, personally.

1 more...

@TehBamski Most entertainment is produced in abusive environments, promotes positively evil people to become famous, and twists the legal system through in such a way that it enables surveillance and erodes ownership rights. But barely anyone is willing to boycott it.

Drinking, driving, smoking, voting, consent, ability to enter contracts including marriage, joining the military:

Raise it all to 25 and be done with it. At 25 you're an adult, before that your body and brain are still developing.

If you want someone learn something like driving well, you teach it to them when they're developing, not after.

And for the love of all that is holy, please do not give even more political power to old people

Oh no! But you see young people joining the military because of indoctrination or poverty surely are to blame for US interventionism (read terrorism)!!!

If I can't vote until I'm 25 then I don't want to be paying tax until I'm 25.

No taxation without representation.

Also, for many areas, a vehicle is a necessity of adult life.

If you're not letting kids drive at 16, then for that *almost-*decade until they're 25 you'd better provide free transportation as well.

Since that's not about to happen, leave it as it is.

Thinking people in their late teenage years and young adults aren't mature enough to do some of those things is just a big tell of how bad we educate them rather than their brain not being "developed".

Consent is the most obvious example, teenagers are gonna have a sexual life no matter what you want them to do. Removing consent just remove yourself from the responsibility of educating them and entice them to stay hidden.

Driving is also just necessary to anyone working, again being safe just need to be taught, plenty of adults are just as immature and stupid.

The same can be said for drinking or smoking, prevention is so much more effective than restrictions.

However, for voting or joining the army that's when i agree. Because the system is built to prey on them, making sure they stay uneducated and vulnerable. So only then does having restrictions make sens to keep them safe.

I don't follow your argument about sex ed and consent.

Sex ed should start as soon as kids can talk, to keep it from being stigmatized and to prevent predation. There is no need to wait until a child reaches sexual maturity for that; in fact, at that point it is too late.

As to driving, most people shouldn't be driving, period. We are, in general, not good at it. Leave it to the professionals.

I agree, the sooner the better.

Sex ed is what makes children mature enough to have sex once they reach the age of doing it.

But what's the point of raising the age of consent?

My point is there isn't any if sex ed is done well, it only makes sex more taboo.

Conversely, if you want to raise it, maybe it's because sex ed wasn't done properly, making teens not able to be mature enough for an activity they are gonna do anyway.

For driving, I would agree in general we aren't good at driving, but changing our means of transport isn't easy, despite being the best solution. That wasn't really the topic though...

The post topic is "hot takes", so my "always curtail driving" position is technically on-topic for the larger thread. ;]

Sex ed should start as soon as kids can talk

lmfao

Don’t know what’s so funny about that. Teaching your toddler that not everyone can touch their genitals is sex ed, and should absolutely be done as soon as they can understand it…

Ok, in that case I totally agree. But going into detail about actual sex doesn't seem like a great idea that early.

There's more than one specific topic covered in sex ed.

We teach math to children, but nobody is suggesting that you need to get your toddler into differential equations.

Only because you think sex is dirty, because you were stigmatized against talking about it at that age.

Of course I don't think that, it's one of the most natural fucking things in the world. I just think for young children, especially ones who just learned how to talk, there's things they definitely DON'T need to know yet.

Who said this is what sex ed is about?

I tend to agree, but I would set the age lower. A person can graduate high school at 18, get a 4-year degree, and still be 3 years away from "adulthood" by your definition. There are plenty of professionals in the first 3 years of their career who are contributing members of society. Shouldn't they be able to drive to work, sign a rental contract, etc? I've been in my career for over 20 years, and I have always worked with young people who may be lacking experience but are still productive employees. I think you'd be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.

I think you'd be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.

I'm guessing their position is very much "oh they still need to work and pay taxes...and they shouldn't expect any more support than they currently have in order to do so...but they need to figure out how to manage it all without driving, and they should be disenfranchised as well".

Don't speak for me, thanks.

My position is "let kids be kids" or maybe more like "let students be students". We expect a college degree for most jobs these days, so if it's a requirement let's, as a society, act like it and prioritize their potential for growth while they have it.

Interesting, but don't you think it would cause issues as well?

We all develop differently and many are mature before 25 while I've ceetainly met people who are not even in their thirties. Do you have any research to support 25 being a more fitting age than 18?

Also: if you cannot enter contracts you cannot work. Do you really think everybody should not be able to hold a job until they reach 25?

I worked long before I could legally enter contracts. Only one of my jobs has had an employment contract.

I agree with your point that many reach maturity before 25 or even 18, however I don't think enabling those fortunate few is worth stripping the protections of minority from the rest.

I’m sure you did, but that is not a good thing. At least where I’m from, a contract is a must have. It states everything related to your job, including tasks, vacation time and salary. Without it you have fewer (or none) legs to stand on should your employer be an ass.

You wouldn’t buy a house without signing the paperwork proving it’s yours and you should not work without a signed contract.

I’m no neuroscientist so I can’t in good faith comment on our development, so I’m only arguing against the contract signing part.

Uhhh.

Driving shouldn't be at 25, nor marriage.

Breakfast tacos at home are better than breakfast tacos out. This is true of many foods because you choose each ingredient (type, brand, ..) that you prefer and prepare it in your preferred way (more done, less oil, ...).

Climate change is making turbulence worse.

Straws are mostly unnecessary, so metal washable straws are dumb.

Plastic bag bans are dumb because they sell boxes of plastic bags.

Any breakfast at home is almost always better than breakfast out, if you've got the time and ingredients. I can, with the right ingredients and tools and while half asleep, hungover, or still drunk, make a full breakfast for a family of four better than 90% of the breakfasts I've ever had out. Sure it took some practice, but breakfast isn't rocket science or usually particularly complex recipe wise.

The only thing I haven't been able to do better at home breakfast wise so far is making my own fresh bagels or donuts. I don't like making poached eggs either, and hollandaise sauce is a pain in the ass, but I can count on one hand the number of times I've gotten an eggs Benedict out at a restaurant that didn't make me immediately regret my choice. Same with biscuits and gravy (why do restaurants think that gravy comes out of a box and should be bright white?) , bacon (just bacon flavored bacon please), eggs (sunny side up does not mean I want the whites to be clear and runny too), etc. All things I really like, but can't tolerate having someone else fuck up and charge me for it.

It's those things where good is delicious and mediocre is terrible.

As far as straws go, I agree that for most people in most situations they're unnecessary for most soft drinks. I do, however, think they're a pretty important part of the experience with some cocktails though, it has some effect on how fast you drink it, how it hits your tongue and you experience the flavors, if the drink is layered it effects how those different layers mix, what order you get them in and how the drink evolves as you drink it.

That said, I think most reusable straws make for a bad substitute in a lot of cases because they're too thick compared to the coffee stirrer type straws I usually tend to get in bars when I order a cocktail that calls for a straw. Thinner straws would probably be kind of a pain to clean though.

I'm not a huge fan of metal straws, they're just too hard and kind of unnerving if they crack against your teeth.

I have some bamboo straws I like, and they fit my vibe since I make a lot of tiki drinks at home.

I can agree with that. If i get a fancy tiki drink i expect a straw, but most other times I'm ok drinking from a cup, especially if I'm sitting down. A year or two ago Starbucks switched to the drinky lids. Why haven't other fast foods done that? I get a drink about twice per week and i do feel guilty about the trash. I usually save my cup and refill it for a couple of days.

Plastic bag bans are dumb because they sell boxes of plastic bags.

Sorry, I don't understand this one. You're saying we shouldn't ban plastic bags in stores because you can still buy plastic bags elsewhere?

You can walk into the store that has a bag ban and buy a box of bags. Then you use those bags to pick up dog poop or line your trash cans or whatever other things you used to do with the previously free store bags that are now banned or charged for. It's not about banning the bags to save the environment. It's about the store getting getting paid for the bag, either as a bag fee or in a box.

Me tossing leftovers in the trash does not in any way interfere with hungry people getting food.

true. but next time, just buy/make less food.

Why?

because the excess is going to waste. why do you think ? sure, it doesnt directly affect hungry people, however:

  1. it is expensive
  2. it is increasing demand for food, raising the price
  3. if the food is still good, you can give it to someone who will appreciate it

is it so hard to simply buy an appropriate amount of food ? or just eating the leftovers ?

  1. Not even in the top ten list of choices I make leading to not enough money
  2. Perhaps on the shortest timescale, but increasing the market for food reduces prices long term
  3. Refutes my original claim without argument, so I disagree unless you’ve got more to back this up.
  1. every bit counts. otherwise i might as well throw away money on everything since rent is so high. if you decide that your spending is negligible (or would be spent regardless), then we can agree to disagree; obv what u spend ur money on is up to u, but i am entitled to my opinion on it.
  2. you might be right about that tbh, although i would like a source.
  3. you are right that it doesnt actively take food away from hungry people. i meant to say that you can improve the situation by giving away leftovers (assuming they are still in reasonable condition).

as a side note, i think the way most people are introduced to the argument is by their parents when they are young. the parents are simply trying to get their children in the habit of considering others' needs, while also saving their own money. especially since most of the time the kid actually is hungry, but just doesnt want to eat vegetables or whatever. if someone (irl) is arguing the starving people card to you as an adult when u are wasting food, then that is less reasonable: though they have good intentions, i agree it is not all that impactful on those hungry. but again, every bit counts.

Especially if that's food that's going to negatively impact your own health, like junk food.

Every human is an egoist. You too.

Everything you've ever done was for your own purpose. Everything we do, we do it cause it makes or will make US happy. Even if a person is kind to others, they are because it makes THEM happy. Even ascetics do what they do, because in their mind it will grand THEM happiness in the future.

So realize that you and everyone around you do what they do, because it makes THEM happy and live you life so it will make YOU happy

Nah, being happy that others are happy isn’t egotism, it’s being a functional social creature. Making a charitable decision at your own expense is a good thing, and feeling good about the decision or being congratulated by someone else does not negate that.

Don't think they're saying it negates the non-selfish part of the act.

I guess, but this just kind of redefines how most people think of egoism/selfishness/altruism etc. Where does it lead? If making people happy is selfish, and making people happy is 'good', does that mean any selfish act is 'good'? Does it really take away from 'good' acts if the performer derives happiness from them?

Most drugs should be over-the-counter. The especially dangerous or addictive ones maybe just require counselling with a pharmacist first. But I'm more concerned about people not able to access the medication they need than I am about idiots removing themselves from the gene pool by OD.

People in my dumbass country would rather 10 people with a genuine medical need suffer as long as 1 addict can't get a fix, and it's so many layers of bullshit.

If you think otc drugs are expensive now, waitl the scheduled narcotics find their way into the open market

there's not really a way to know for sure but I imagine the price would actually come down somewhat due to removal of red tape and paperwork associated with drug control

possibly also from increased competition if that made it easier for a drug manufacturer to begin producing previously controlled drugs

for example amphetamine salt production is capped by the US DEA. if that cap were removed the supply would increase and the price might very well decrease

sadly this is largely useless speculation

Personally i hope it stays that way. There are enough legal ways to lose ones mind and life

[Country] isn't real, it was made up by [its founders] to [dodge taxes / dominate neighboring city-states / measure dicks with [Other Country]]

heh, just replace [Country] with [The Country I dont like] and you've got yourself a deal

Oh, definitely not. This format is explicitly for pissing off nationalists.

Simply dismiss the validity of the governing body they worship by reference to the historical contingency of its creation, then sit back and watch as they work themselves into a froth trying to justify their imagined superiority without reference to their mythic founders.

Tears of the Kingdom is a terrible game, it's a mod of BOTW but with more ways to skip the exploration so you don't get to memorize the map like in Elden Ring or Fallout.

I'm not sure I exactly agree. I feel like it would be a better game than botw if I hadn't already played botw. Still suffered from most of the same problems.

Also the combat is so bad it encouraged you to avoid it whenever possible.

It's definitely a glorified DLC that was stretched into a whole game. The new things are mostly good but 80% is just exactly the same.

I wouldn't say terrible but mid possibly. It just took something that already worked well and added a little extra to it.

If "thing2: the sequel" attaches a something kinda neato to the revolutionary, gaming landscape changing "thing1:the thingining" that doesn't mean thing2 is really better than something that significantly moved the bar.

This is why Fallout 3 is better than Fallout New Vegas and I will fight you all over it.

You are bad at parenting if you give your child a smart phone or social media.

until what age ?

Its difficult to point number because context, but 13 y/o at leat

I guess till they become and adult because they are in charge of their decisions at that point.

so they cant use a phone even at 15-17 ? a lot of kids have jobs at that point.

Flip phone or non internet phone. We have a phone for the kids, but its not one that can get them to the internet or sending pictures.

unfortunately they will almost certainly get picked on. i dont think abstinence is the best idea here, better to educate them on the dangers and monitor/restrict what they are using the phone for. lest they hate you. but certainly for someone under 12-14 they do not need a phone.

I hear what you are saying, but I dont want my kids to fit in with those kids, and thus we have them in private schools now. One main issue is even if you teach them not to just start watching porn, they turn into one of those kids that is on their phone all the time and then transitions into an adult like that too.

you realize most kids will still find a way, even if you tell them not to ? its better to actually educate them. which is the point of parenting; not just to restrict what they are allowed to do.

So since my kids will find porn any way should I just give them direct access?

no. teach them about the dangers of porn and other dangers online. ban porn from their devices. if you make porn out to be this unspeakable horror, it only leads to a natural curiosity which can lead to an unhealthy relationship with it or even sex in general. please note that i am not advocating for actively allowing minors access porn, nor do i encourage anyone to access it themselves. a phone can be a tool, and tools come with inherent dangers. teach your kids like you would with driving a car or not eating junk food.

Sure, teach them the dangers but also make it as hard as possible for them to access it.

I think another big issue outside of porn is that when kids grow up with phones they turn into people that are always looking at phones. I have some inlaws kids that have phones, and they are just inherently not interesting and dont engage. I agree that phones are a good tool, but when people are constantly having it in their hand it gives them addiction and makes them not interesting.

I don't know if this is a hot take, but I think people need to stop basing their lives off of celebrities/influencers. We equate wealth with some hidden knowledge, when they're just people. Sometimes really fucking stupid people who happen to have a profitable talent. Next time some tries to sell you something or teach you something, ask yourself if this person is even an authority/knowledgeable on what they're talking about. I've gotten in the habit of mentally going "and you are?" when I get new information. Sometimes you find our that person is a leader in their field. Sometimes it's just some terminally online teenager.

Hotter Take: I think black people put too much stock in celebrities and what they'll do for the black community. You don't get freakishly wealthy being a sweetheart. Jay Z is not going to save us. And our blind loyalty has us supporting subpar performances and people because we "have to support" and it keeps fucking us over. No, I'm not supporting this business just because it's black owned if the service/quality sucks (especially since black owned goods tend to be more expensive).

Realists are just pessimists.

You should be an optimist even if you are faking it. To lift others up.

Mate, I’m barely lifting myself up certain days, can I get a break from being responsible for others’ self-development, dunno, at least half the days?

You’re not responsible for their self development. This is a morale thing.

Trust me it’s easier to pick yourself up for the whole team than it is for just yourself.

Maybe next time you ride the bus, imagine that you’re a background character in someone else’s struggle, and how you hold yourself will be absorbed by their subconscious. Maybe just by holding yourself the right way, you can make everyone on the bus just slightly more ready for the day.

Who is stopping you from taking a break? My hot take is just a general recommendation, especially for people you love.

Real life and responsibilities stop me, my man. Also mental health management. But thanks for asking.

Optimists are delusional

Optimists are aspirational. The placebo effect is real, and pessimists use it counterproductively.

  1. I like useful delusions.
  2. If you are optimistic for others you ancourage them to do stuf. Doing some stuff that may not work is 100000% better than watching Netflix/TV. Especially in current nihilistic social climate.
  3. Pessimist and optimist are both right (not my quote)
  4. Example: Pessimist: I will not get this job -> So I will not even apply -> 0% chance of getting a job -> 100% correct Optimist: I will get this job -> I apply and prepare -> 20% chance of getting this job -> 20% correct But who cares if you are correct. What matters is taking a chance. This comes way more useful if you are optimistic every day. So you apply for a job whenever there is a chance. And if you apply for 10 jobs from initial 20% you get 89% chance to get a good job.

Being naive is not the same as being optimistic.

  1. Useful to who?
  2. I can tell you that overly optimistic people annoy me to no end, and even tend to have the complete opposite effect on me. Cheerleading, thoughts and prayers BS, rather than acknowledging the suckage that’s happening so we can act on it, doesn’t help me at all.
  3. Debatable
  4. One can perfectly be realistic about its chances at an interview/job and apply and perform well at it and get it regardless…

You seem to be equating realism with pessimism and immobilism, while equating optimism and action. Why?

  1. Optimistic person. And if saying "this idea might just work" encourages people you love to try things, then it also helps people you love.
  2. We could debate on what "overly" means. If you believe you will win the lottery this is just stupid and naive, but if you believe you can start a profitable restaurant this is not overly optimistic. Still you must not be stupid when trying.
  3. This is debatable. This statement is very broad.
  4. Correct if you are realistic and not pessimistic. My hot take should be formed: "People who claim are realists are most often just pessimists, who will pass all ideas as bad". Actually to continue from here we should exactly define all the words we are using. And in this case it would not be a hot take anymore. Also I believe to decide to try and take interview you must feel optimistic about it instead of pessimistic.

My hot take is targeting "realists" who say: "Your idea is bad. Do not pursue it. I am just being realistic." Even though their idea has maybe small but fair chance of succeeding. This is just discouragement - which is more often seen in pessimists.

Actually at this point I do not even know enough about words and definitions to continue.

I think we should actively try to encourage each other to act, also by believing in others ideas (still do not believe in winning the lottery).

I can definitely agree with this last formulation. But I don’t agree that I need an optimistic outlook into something to do said thing.

More and more people are against giving kids internet access. Allow me to go against the grain:

If your child is neurodivergent, or LGBTQ+, or any other form of misfit, then denying them internet access is tantamount to condemning them to social isolation. It wasn't until I got unrestricted internet access, circa 17 years of age, that I realised that actually, no, I wasn't a fucking alien, there were hundreds of thousands of people just like me, but I didn't know because I was stuck in this shitty small town with shitty small town people. So I spent seventeen years thinking there was something fundamentally wrong with me when in reality there was something wrong with the environment around me.

I would have had a much happier early life if I'd gotten internet earlier. Wouldn't have spent 90% of my teens being suicidal.

The bear would eat women alive while they simp for an actual killer.

Imagine using the word simp

Imagine criticising someone for using a word despite it having been in the vernacular for years.

In whose vernacular? I've never heard it spoken in person, just seen it on posts by some of the worst people online.

Vernacular doesn't need to belong to a person or even a group of people.

If your problem is with the people who say it and not the word itself, that's a different issue and one that I'm not really interested in debating.

Vernacular doesn't need to belong to a person or even a group of people.

Then why do they call it "African American Vernacular English"?

If your problem is with the people who say it and not the word itself, that's a different issue and one that I'm not really interested in debating.

Who says I can't have two problems?

Is English your second language? I didn't say it can't be associated to a person or group, I said it doesn't need to.

I also didn't say that you can't have more than one problem, I just addressed the one you seemed to be concerned with and defined it as one that I'm not interested in debating.

The point of that meme as I took it is to illustrate the uncertainty women face when it comes to the intentions of (strange) men. The bear, an actual killer, at least is predictable. Not a criticism of your hot take btw, just sharing my thoughts on this meme.

I always point to the fact that women can carry weapons in our society, yet mostly choose not to.

This makes me suspicious that safety is the actual issue.

If we're talking about Lemmy rather than wider society then;

Inb4; I'm broadly in support of trans people and trans rights/equality but I think there are three small snagging issues

That people who identify as a women but who went through puberty as a male shouldn't be competing in women's sports. I think it's a basic issue of fairness and that it ultimately disincentives people born female from entering a career in sports competitions.

That there is a serious debate to be had about trans people in women's changing rooms. I know it is a very nuanced and sensitive topic and I don't pretend that I have the answer, but I don't think it is as simple as "I identify as X so I'll use X changing room". I'd like to make it clear that I don't think this is a "sneaky perv" issue but rather a debate about spaces that should possibly be reserved for people born as female.

That no permanent changes should be made to the bodies of children. If you're not old enough to get a tattoo, piercing, drink, smoke etc. Then you're not old enough to make an extremely important decision that will effect you for the rest of your life.

I think all sports aren't equal in this. The rules for MMA would surely be different than the rules for curling or chess. The people who control sports organizations usually have a life dedicated to their sport, and are in a much better place to make a call about it than congress or randos on the internet. This matter should be handled by them. The fact that anyone without skin in the game cares about this at all is a losing battle.

If sex doesn't matter in curling or chess, then why are there different competitions for men and women in curling and why do women get their own titles in chess?

I do understand the sentiment of what you're saying, but it's not the reality we live in.

I can't speak to curling, but in chess the womens' leagues are there to get women involved. There are no biological advantages at play. This is a 2000 year old game they were excluded from playing until 100 years ago. So someone could put forth a good argument that it's more about gender than physical sex.

There are very few women chess players at the top level of the game. The reasons for this are debatable, it could simply be that women are less interested in chess or that women are put off by a male dominated "sport", but I've also heard that men are much more likely to have a specific type of autism that makes them especially suited to doing well at chess.

I'm absolutely open minded to the idea that women can become top level chess players and that women's titles could be made redundant, but I think it's reasonable to see the evidence of this before we say that it's an equal playing field for both sexes. I'd suggest that we should see a decent proportion of women in the top one hundred players of the world, or even the top two hundred and fifty.

Given the current ranking of chess players, it's really hard to say that women have the same chess ability as the men and I absolutely don't want that to come across as sexism, it's just factual.

https://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml

There's actually a big different in mens and women's IQ distribution. Men are all over the map, from extremely dumb to extremely smart, but women tend to statistically cluster in the middle with comparatively few outliers. Way less mentally deficient, very few Bobby Fischers.

The "people who control sports organizations" only made separate leagues for women because some mens' feelings get hurt when they lose to women.

There's no other point to segregating sports by gender, just straight white cis dudes getting bent out of shape by any challenge to their supposed superiority.

I think you mean sports without a physical activity aspect; and even then, sports like chess don't separate males and females (they offer female-only competitions).

There’s no other point to segregating sports by gender, just straight white cis dudes getting bent out of shape by any challenge to their supposed superiority.

What are you on about? There are two HUGE reasons: safety and fairness:

  1. Especially in contact sports, allowing women to play with men is not safe, and would only lead to an environment conducive to women getting injured.

  2. There would be zero professional female athletes (excluding sports that only require mental strategy ofc) if there were no separate leagues for women. They wouldn't perform at even close to the same level as the men, AND would be at increased risk of injury.

I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but here are biological factors that make it necessary to separate men and women in order to have fair competition. Female athletes would be infinitely worse off if forced to try to compete in a single league shared with men, because they aren't be able to.

I think you mean sports without a physical activity aspect

No, I do not.

Mens egos are so fragile that women were banned from minor league baseball when Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931.

Figure skating was segregated in 1903 for the same reason, Madge Syers took the silver medal from a man.

The history of womens' sports is rife with examples like this, most sports started out as co-ed and only stayed that way until women started winning.

Figure skating is a perfect example of a performance sport, there isnt any physicality. Also, I think its absolutely ridiculous to claim that Jackie Mitchell striking out an aging Ruth and Gherig in an exhibition match is a woman 'starting to win'.

Which sports do the women often beat the men in?

Ultra-endurance sports such as marathons (women show a statistical advantage over men above the 150-mile mark), Figure Skating (Madge Syers beat two men for the silver medal in 1902, women were then banned from competing until the sport was gender-segregated in 1906), Baseball (Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931 and was kicked out of the league a month later), Shooting sports (Zhang Shang took the gold in shotgun skeet in 1992, women were't allowed to compete again until the sport was gender-segregated in 2000, and women average higher scores in the rifle category to this day), etc etc.

Shootings an interesting one. Most people familiar with guns notice women take to shooting accurately more easily and quickly than guys (with rifles, not handguns). I've seen this lots personally. My theory involves lower heart rate and lower muscle mass being conducive.

I dont know what they're on about with Mitchell.

(Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931 and was kicked out of the league a month later)

This lacks SO much context, it was an EXHIBITION match and she never played in the MLB, she played in the minors. Anyone reading that would assume she struck out two greats in a real game and was banned by the MLB.

There's a lot of truth to she shooting thing, that should absolutely be co-ed.

However, my point still stands: women and men should be separated if the sport has a physical component to its competition. (i.e. any sort of contact.)

100% agree with everything you said.

They told us for so long gender isn't sex, and then somehow it was, as far as this sports issue

Because we can debate all-day about what is a man or a women or non-binary and gender roles etc. But I would say debating what is a male or female is much easier and simply comes down to genetics.

Edit: imagine getting down voted for saying XX chromosomes are female and XY is male haha, I guess we're just ignoring the science of genetics now

Humans are doomed, destroy themselves one way or another.

Life itself is probably doomed by sheer laws of entropy lol

If someone's too dangerous to own a gun they should be institutionalized until they're no longer a danger. Just taking guns away from them won't prevent them from being a problem.

Define "too dangerous to own a gun"

Anything that would currently mean a person loses their right to gun ownership. A felony, red flag, whatever. I'm not sure I agree with all of them but the logic of the situation dictates that if a person is so dangerous that they will kill people then that needs to be corrected. Just taking a gun away won't prevent them from doing harm if they want to.

It's hard to argue that guns don't make the proverbial bad guy more efficient at killing. If guns weren't the most effective tool for killing someone, cops would carry cheaper alternatives like billy clubs, and wars would still be fought with swords and bows.

Of course, they do carry billy clubs and blunt instruments are quite capable of killing people too. Sure mass shootings would be harder (assuming we could do one single thing about the six hundred million guns out there already, which, good luck) but single brutal murders w/o guns are also a problem and typically target women, lgbt, and disabled people.

Pepper Mills are overrated.

Wait, what are pepper mills

The grinder for pepper corns. It gives you more flavor than ground pepper.

Pepper itself is overrated. At least the black one.

The doomsday argument is correct, and becomes more obviously correct with each passing day.

The destruction of the library of Alexandria was a win.

How so?

Its legacy as this place potentially and magically fulfilling the hopes of having the answers to one's questions far exceeds reasonability, especially given the ordinariness of its circumstances/contents, and combine that with the fact that what they were known for is performing human experimentation on live prisoners, all without the ability to understand these experiments enough to start forming a unified concept of medicine around it, since this is Ancient Greece/Egypt we're talking about.

Other people shouldn't be able to hurt you, non-physically.

Human beings are social animals. The only way that other people wouldn't be able to hurt me non-physically is if I were to cut myself off from my humanity.

...why would anyone want to do this?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I guess that's why it's a hot take. I think it's possible without becoming a recluse

...but how?

It's actually pretty simple (but not easy at all)... You start actually believing that other people can't hurt you. That is pretty much all there is to it. (Not quite, will explain later).

You simply don't give that power to people. I love my spouse. But my spouse cheats on me. Now I could be hurt by the betrayal... But why? What is the benefit for me? I don't need to feel hurt to know that my spouse is not worth keeping around, to be my spouse anymore.

If other people do something bad to me, that is not on me, it's their problem. They're evil/unaware/selfish. It's no reflection on the quality of person I am. Thus when someone does something bad to me, it's honestly just good to know. I can decide how bad I think it is and react accordingly. But feeling hurt by it is not really required in that process.

As I said at the beginning, "not quite", there are a whole bunch of other beliefs attached to/required by this. For example, I believe that everything is temporary, or at least that the chance of something permanent (really, temporary until end of life) being low. I don't expect to be together with my spouse to the end of time - if it happens though, I have nothing against it. I believe that change is fine, and I look forward to it: If my spouse cheats on me, I can experience no partner for a while or forever, or experience looking for a new one, both things are fine with me. And so on. Basically all my beliefs are set up in a way that I'm fine with whatever happens.

(The only exception is extreme, or lasting physical harm and death. I can't experience anything "normally" anymore when these happen to me. Some disabilities could be fine, but I probably have a limit of how much I could be affected. Losing all movement in all my limbs could be fine, but I'm not sure. Losing an arm or a leg or hearing or similar severeness I could probably be fine with.)

Now the thing is, changing your entire belief system to be fine with pretty much anything is not something people are either willing or able to do. I did it though and think that theoretically everyone can do it.

What do you mean, like insults or if someone really insults you with a phobic term?

Unless you annoy or anger the person first, then sure I'd get it if they were big an asshole. But if it's a retort, then maybe don't start insult wars you can't win.

Also I shouldn’t have to poop

Which is easily possible, just eat no fiber. Astronauts do it to create no waste.

Don't know what it has to do with my comment though, yours should be a standalone reply to this topic?

Usa obsession with keeping the 2nd amendment is doing more harm than good. Your obsession with possession of fire arms in general generates problems that I don't see in other countries, starting for the school shootings...

But no "muh rights, I must gun down anyone invading my home, we do things the muricah way here yeewah, Bald eagle screech! 🦅

Order of operations is important. Yes, if we got rid of all the guns then gun violence would stop being a problem. There's a whole discussion that could be had about sensible gun regulations that is beyond the scope of this comment. Reform on the matter is necessary.

However, that 'order of operations' thing I mentioned: I'll give up my guns when the fascists give up theirs, and not a day earlier.

Yes but we also avoid problems that other countries with gun bans have, such as massacres of civilians by military and police.

It’s sort of a balancing act you see.

such as massacres of civilians by military and police

massacres by police

USA

Who's gonna tell them?

Oh you must be thinking of the time they shot a student 70 years ago. No, I’m referring to events rightly called “massacres”. Not a trigger happy riot officer killing someone. I’m talking lining 20 people at a time up next to a ditch and shooting them all in the backs of the heads.

Im talking about massacres. Killing events where 20 is a rounding error.

Now I get it. Your teachers may have failed to teach you about human history. But we live in the age of informaron. You can look this stuff up.

We haven’t had what Myanmar had recently.

No, I’m referring to events rightly called “massacres”

Like so?

Killing events where 20 is a rounding error.

Goalposts status: moved.

You can look this stuff up.

I did. It's how I learned about this stuff. But you, in the meantime, apparently think that

trigger happy riot officer killing someone

Is totally different and not at all a symptom of overall system. Cool. Don't forget to keep your hands on the wheel in a traffic stop, lest an acorn falls.

Okay so you reached back 40 years and found an event where the government made 250 people homeless and killed 6 people.

Using a bombing raid.

Let’s see what I can find in the other column …

Oh look, a few weeks ago the government of Myanmar killed 30 civilians

So by reaching back to May I was able to find a massacre, in a country with a civilian weapons ban, five times larger than the on you found by reaching back to 1985, in a country with an armed populace.

Do you suppose they dropped bombs on these civilians?

So far thar’s two data points. Shall we continue one for one comparing the massacres of unarmed populations to those of armed populations?

1 more...

Gun laws are ineffective. There is zero correlation between gun deaths and strictness of gun laws. Despite limits and bans of short barreled rifles, "assault weapons", machine guns, etc, gun deaths have continually increased.

Gun bans are only effective where there already isn't violence, at which point it's redundant.

I believe the culprits behind widespread American violence are high rates of youth delinquency and gang related criminal activity.

The culprits are an extremely broken social safety net, crumbling education infrastructure and institutional racism.

AI must die for us to survive.

or the one I got a temp ban at the other place for “promoting violence”: if there’s a threat to your wellbeing and you have to protect your dog, you chose the wrong dog and any harm that comes to you is your own fault.

You can have your anxiety dog, but I feel safer with my security guard dog. You’re dead because you’re dumb.

Dogs are not just tools. You can choose a dog for reasons other than grandstanding your home security.

Epstein killed himself and you're a tedious memebrained dickhead if you think otherwise.

I think your hot take is fine, but you do lack a certain way with words my friend.

Maybe next time hit the "post" button after the first three words. It would be better for everyone.

You don’t speak for me.

I grew up in a culture where people spoke vulgarly and it was fucking fine. Just piss off with your thin skin and let the rest of us talk. Go nuzzle up to whatever sweetness you need from speech on your own, and let the rest of us be.

There’s nothing wrong with vulgarity. They were more talking about the tact with which the person was sharing their idea. There’s a difference, dickhead fuckface fart muncher

They’re not addressing anything. They’re telling the person to shut up.

I have no problem with what this person said. I found what they said valuable. I don’t think anyone should be going around telling others they can’t speak because they don’t match some standard the policer thinks should apply to speech.

He was being a cunt for no reason, so I had some fun responding to him.

Now you’re being a cunt, so I’m having some fun responding to you.

I’m doing this for your benefit, so you get to keep practicing reading comprehension. Thank me later, cunt.