if we're gonna ban stuff just based on deaths, we should get rid of fast food, soda, cigarettes, alcohol, and cars in general
kava
joined 1 year ago
Can anyone copy paste the actual article here? It's behind a paywall. I generally like Jacobin so I'd withhold judgement until actually reading the article.
Although I'd disagree on "Bidenism" as a term simply because Biden has not had nearly enough impact or influence to merit that word existing.
I sleep 8 hours a night and wake up at the same time every day. I've found that as long as my sleep schedule is consistent and reliable, my energy levels are fine. It doesn't really matter how busy I am throughout the day.
Once the sleep schedule gets out of whack (I sleep in too much, or have to wake up at 3am for work trip) then it takes a good 5 days or so to go back to normal
Let's say you want to find what will be an "old person's name" in 2060. What you do is subtract 60 from 2060 => 2000. Then go to google and type in "most popular baby names year 2000"
pick the first 10 or so and those will be "old person's name"
I think federal government probably sent a pretty please over to reddit HQ to censor this.
They're afraid of it fomenting further dissent. It's a delicate situation when the plebs are upset. A little bit is OK, in fact preferable. But too much can lead to a chain reaction that cannot be controlled.
it's a curiosity thing. i think there's a value to seeing it, although not regularly seeing it.
humans are capable of some horrifying brutality. we live in nice little perfect bubbles and we don't even realize it.
for example, it's very easy to catch yourself cheering for war in the name of idealism. but see a couple dozen war videos and you realize what it really means. i think your statement honestly holds true for any type of morbid type of content. for example Crime and Punishment- dissecting the psychology of a double homicide. you could say "why would you read 500 pages of dense literature about someone murdering two innocent people?"
it's because that's part of the human experience, for better or worse.
similar to interrogation videos on YouTube. Even poetry like Suicide in the Trenches
I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.
In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
I feel instructing people to do things goes into the action category.
exactly. that's how US law works. in England, the state has much broader powers to arrest you depending on your speech. Like for example, the first statement I made
“i believe all [plural form of random ethnic slur] should be brutally murdered”
a very similar post on twitter got someone sentenced to 2 years in jail over in England just a few months ago. let search around and find the direct quote....
i found it
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it”
My interpretation is that this is a belief. He didn't explicitly instruct anyone to do anything. He said, in other words - "if people set fire to all the muslim immigrants, i wouldn't care" or basically "i would be happy with people setting fire to all muslim imimgrants"
in England, that's a crime. in the US, you have to be much more explicit. You have to
a) specifically instruct people to do something "everyone, attack that person in the red hat"
b) hold the belief that your statement has a real chance to followed. so for example, if you right now say "hey kava, beat your wife" you almost certainly could not be charged in the US because a reasonable person would not immediately beat their wife because of a statement like that
c) it has to be immediate - so you have to say something and it happen in the very near future. so if you write "let's stab all the [ethnic slurs]" and then someone reads that 3 months into the future- you can't be held liable.
So I believe the US laws, in this case, are so much better than English laws.
The US does a lot of shit wrong. So many things. But on speech? I think best in the world.
edit: there's more on this topic if you're interested: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
I appreciate the personal anecdote. I believe in cases like the one you detailed, assisted suicide is not only morally justified but I think perhaps even obligatory. It does sound horrific and I can only imagine how horrific it feels to be that person going through that period of time.
When I say duty to live, I'm more speaking to those who are not terminally ill. Another user brought up a good point where what we need to do is look at the death % rates and see how they shifted. For example, if 20% of people now die from assisted suicide, do 20% less people die from cancer and other similar diseases? Then assisted suicide is for all intents and purposes relegated to terminally ill patients.
If the number, however, is let's say 15% less people die from cancer, that would imply 5% more people are dying because of assisted suicide than would have otherwise died. This is the part I'm scared of.
Again, I appreciate your comment. It must have been a profound thing to witness. For good and for bad.
things not in the physical realm should have consequences not in the physical realm
I mean, it depends. I think the current laws in the US are more or less fine.
For example, if I send you a death threat through an online message, it should be equivalent to me sending you a death threat in any other fashion.
So I'm not a total absolutist, but I am a strong free-speech proponent.
I think saying something like "i believe all [plural form of random ethnic slur] should be brutally murdered" is an expression of a belief. it's a horrific belief, yes, but it's a belief. I think it constitutes as free speech and therefore the government cannot prosecute
however let's say I'm a musician at a concert and i see a guy in the crowd and point and yell to the crowd "hey everybody, attack that [singular form of ethnic slur] and rip his [religious apparel] off" - that isn't a belief. that is an incitement to violence.
that should be a crime.
in England, both the first and the 2nd are crimes. here in the US, it's only the 2nd
yeah it's a weird time. over in England during the anti-immigrant riots some people got sent to jail for inciting violence for some twitter messages. If you actually read the messages and compare it to the rhetoric coming out of many people about this CEO, many people would be sent to jail if we were following the same standard.
obviously the US is not England and we have free speech protections- but people really should exercise caution
Trump's base is more nuanced, I think. If he starts the rhetoric bashing "big pharma" and "corrupt CEOs" then I think his base will fall in line.
That's the thing with Trump. His policies don't actually need to be logically coherent with traditional GOP values.
For example, GOP has historically championed low regulation, low taxes, and free market capitalism. This has been hammered home until it's become almost an autonomic verbal tic or religious phrase ("inshallah" "god bless our troops")
But then he comes and he loudly and repeatedly pushes for tariffs - instating large and broad taxes that restrict free market capitalism. And what happens? His base cheers him on for it.
Or for example GOP has historically been supportive of illegal immigrants. Look at Ronald Reagan, another quasi-religious symbol of the GOP. He gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Legalized them and supported immigration. Why? Because it's good for free market capitalism.
What about Trump? He goes the other way. Wants to restrict the import of labor as much as possible, hurting free market capitalism.
See what I mean? It doesn't actually matter what his real policies are. That's what I find fascinating about him. I think he has the power to take universal healthcare and actually implement it in this country if he wanted to. And that it would cement his legacy permanently.
Which to me, is something a megalomaniac would want
view more: next ›
i'd disagree. of course, I agree that all these items are regulated. which makes sense for all the same reasons- a lot of people die if you fuck up. but you don't need an id and a background check to buy a McDonalds combo meal
maybe not but your example
I think the opposite is true. There's a ton of places I can sell soup, especially if it's pre-packaged and inspected by the FDA. for example I can go to walmart and buy a bunch of canned soup and sell that all day, no problem. In most of this country, however, you cannot just sell guns from the back of your car
sure, there are exceptions in certain states. for example a private seller who is not in the regular business of selling guns, there are specific states that allow you to do so with significantly less scrutiny than a dealer. although you still have the responsibility to do a basic check (is person old enough, what is person buying gun for)
beyond that, the overwhelming majority of gun sales go through Federal Firearms Licensed businesses. which conduct background checks and check ID.
tldr: if you're in one of the few states that allow it and you want to sell 1 or 2 guns out of the back of your car, OK. if you are anywhere else and/or you sell more than a couple guns, you're liable to get hit with some very serious federal and state charges. like potentially years in the federal penitentiary type charges