That this meme is low effort content and it’s spamming everywhere
It’s the first time I’ve seen it.
Aren’t ask lemmy posts “low effort” in general as well in the sense that it’s just a question? My point isn’t that ask lemmy is bad, my point is just because it’s low effort doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Memes are low effort in general
The more effort a meme takes to make, the less likely it will become well-known.
Myers Briggs is posh astrology.
People are crazy when they promote closed-source AI (okay, okay, generative model) projects like ChatGPT, Bard etc.
This is literally one of the most important technologies of the future, and after all the times technology companies screwed them (us) up big time and monopolized the Internet, they go into the same trap again and again.
First they surrendered the free Internet, now they surrender the new frontiers.
Wake up, people. Go HuggingFace, advocate for free AI, and ideally - for a GPL one. We cannot afford for this part of our future to be taken away from us.
Young people are people and deserving of rights, including but not limited to the vote. There is no stupid thing a young person could do with their vote that old people don’t already do and we don’t require them not to in order to keep their vote.
No taxation without representation. Either teens get to vote, or they don’t pay taxes. Anything less is un-American.
When I was mid 20s I thought young kids were too naive. I got older and saw how fucking stupid most adults are and think young kids are much smarter than their predecessors. They should absolutely have a voice in elections. 16 seems like a good age to me
If you can legally work, you should be able to legally vote!
Yep. I’d say 12 is a good age to start, because most will be able to read and understand government.
because most will be able to read and understand government
People with dementia and other mental illnesses don’t lose their voting rights, neither is it coupled to IQ. And imo with good reason.
So I am actually not sure why we are applying this hurdle to children to begin with, when we aren’t doing it in other situations.
I agree with you, but a baby can’t read a ballot or pull a lever. Help is always available to anyone who asks, so I suppose we could just eliminate the age requirement altogether and let anyone who is able to register go to the polls.
I would be concerned about a certain type of person trying to make as many little voters as they can crank out, but I suppose some people do that anyway and just wait until they turn 18.
I agree with you, but a baby can’t read a ballot or pull a lever
I absolutely get the sentiment, but with arguments like these i always end up running into hypocrisy and double standards. There are plenty of illiterate adults and we are rightfully allowing them to vote, so do the blind. Paralyzed people are also voting despite them not being physically able to move a lever. As you said, there should always be help available.
In practice i doubt many babies will articulate a desire to vote and the number of extremely young children will also be limited. So to me if a 6 year old comes up and says “i want to vote” i say let him, he certainly is affected by the consequences of the elections regardless.
let anyone who is able to register go to the polls.
I would note that depending on the implementation this can also be a unneccesary hurdle and be abused as seen in the US.
As an inherent right it really should be as automatic as practial limits allow it to be (some sort of register is ofc needed to prevent voting multiple times).
Here in Germany for example it’s simply tied to your registered primary residence, which means that only people without such have to actively seek out registration wherever they live.
I would be concerned about a certain type of person trying to make as many little voters as they can crank out, but I suppose some people do that anyway and just wait until they turn 18.
And that’s the slippery slope: Who gets to decide that “certain type of person”?
To go with your example of the number of children: I think statistically poor people have more than the rich. Is that what we want to fight? Also who is to say that children vote the same as their parents?
Children are not autonomous and are beholden to another citizen for their existence. That’s a civic relationship too easy to abuse with, what I see to be, very little net benefit.
I’m in support of not taxing children, but how will you distinguish an intentional purchase made by a child vs a purchase made on behalf of someone else for the benefit of a tax-free purchase?
An illiterate or blind adult can ask for help. A poll worker will read the ballot or provide a braille version to help them, and will fill out the ballot with them if requested.
I’m still agreeing with you, you’ve convinced me that any age barrier is arbitrary and hypocritical.
As for registration being a hurdle, the courts have long held that the effort to be registered is minimal, as again there are resources to help people get registered. There are outreach programs, and you can actually go to your local post office or dmv and they will help you register. Children would have an even easier time, since anyone in school could have a teacher or school staff help them.
Children are particularly beholden to their parents for support, though, and by “certain type” I mean the type of person who thinks that having a child is a means to an end. There’s a whole spectrum of quality parenting decisions, but as a general rule, anyone who is having more kids to have more votes is probably a bad parent.
I just want to say thank you. It’s… so unbelievably rare to find someone else on the right side of this in the wild. To not have to fight this fight alone.
Thank you for stepping up, for speaking out, for… all of it.
Glad to hear that! I think there are plenty of us, it’s just really hard to to have these kind of discussions online and other voices are just louder.
That’s part of my point. We don’t require old people to do anything other than… exist for a while? And yet when you start taking about young people all these qualifications start coming out. But stupid people get old too, and nobody keeps them away from the polls.
Agreed. And it’s good that we aren’t keeping those away. Always a slippery slope to make rules about who can or can’t vote.
Honestly I might even go as far as stripping down the requirements to the very basics:
-
Citizenship (including special cases that e.g. EU citizens can vote in regional elections of other EU countries if they live there)
-
the desire to vote
Just let them start voting when they express their desire to do so.
-
12 year olds voting, Jesus Christ
What are you afraid they’ll do?
What are you afraid they’ll do that old people don’t already do?
Lack understanding and life experiences
Which would end in…?
You go in the booth, it’s Option A or Option B. You fill in the box. Nobody cares why.
What you’ve said here is a meaningless non-answer based on culturally ingrained prejudice.
In reality, we already don’t require old people to actually have or demonstrate either of those things.
Sheltered people and hermits aren’t denied the vote. They don’t have to have experienced anything but the passage of time, regardless of how little they’ve filled it with.
People who watch lies on purpose aren’t denied the vote. They might have no understanding but misunderstanding and still are able to steer the course of the country based on delusions and propaganda.
Think of every garbage politician you’ve seen get elected. All the damage they’ve done. And realize that old people elected every single one of them.
Which would end in…?
Even dumber shit than we now have
At this point I have to conclude you’re not ready to address this conversation in good faith.
Why not? Have you talked to a twelve year old recently?
I have and that’s exactly why. I have also been one.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. Is a 12 year old actually worse in any way?
Yes, they are
Because…
I agree. I wish the voting age was 16. (Or even younger, but 16 would be a big step in the right direction.)
At 16, students could take half the day off to go vote. Hell, it should be a grade-level field trip. Research shows that those who vote in their first eligible election are likely to continue voting, and democracies are dying from a lack of political engagement.
The West Wing had a segment with some kids arguing for suffrage, and it convinced me. Everyone else I’ve talked to, however…
Young people will typically just vote how their parents tell them to. They typically just repeat what their parents say without critically thinking about things. They typically haven’t fully developed the mental capacity for things like empathy. They haven’t experienced what it’s like to work or struggle to survive.
Plenty of people vote how their parents did; that’s just how values work.
Plenty of people vote against how their parents did; that’s just how having your own identity works.
Plenty of people vote who think critically about nothing despite their so-vaunted capacity to; those people are idiots, but we don’t require them not to be. And really, most of our politicians could use some lessons in empathy, technically capable or not.
None is a reason for denying suffrage.
And nobody should have to struggle to survive; that’s a failure of modern society. And again, it’s not something we require old people to be tested for; silver spoon trust fund kids who will never know what “struggle” means aren’t kept from voting.
We don’t require old people to justify their votes. They don’t have to be rational enough, empathetic enough, or anything else enough. Old people can vote by rolling dice and nobody will stop them.
Hawaiian pizza is good.
Not that it’s the best pizza, or even my favorite. It’s just a fine option.
Religions are mostly just popularized conspiracy theories. Believing in God is about as realistic as believing the world is flat.
Disruptive protest, no matter how annoying, is valid and should be protected under law. When the government moves to ban protest and dissent, they’ve crossed the line into authoritarianism.
The right to protest is a fundamental of democracy, and we should not accept any erosion of the fundamentals of democracy.
People overlook vegetarianism and semi-vegetarian lifestyles as an option too much and it is not helpful that real life examples of vegetarian cultures, get co-opted by Vegans purists as “Vegan cultures” in easily disproven claims- thus hurting the whole movement
I don’t eat meat or dairy, so i technically i’m a vegan, right? But i wouldn’t identify as a vegan. When someone cooks and says: oh i forgot that you are vegan, and i used butter, still eat it. When i’m at a bbq and there is a steak leftover, and no one eats it and it goes to the trash, i would eat it. I find the idea of factory meat absolutely repulsive therefore i don’t support it in any way. Once i talked to a vegan guy, and he was super weird so we didn’t have a lot to talk about. I told him something like: when i was a kid i was really into chicken wings, and now in hindsight, i don’t think chicken is actually good. And he said: oh, you are one of THOSE people. Meat eater are like pedophiles, once you fucked a kid, you’ll always be a childfucker.
Eh… Okay, i’ll just stand over there and make sure to never talk to you again
That’s probably one in 100,000 vegans
Woah this got dark.
I’ve never been closer to vegan than I am now. And I love meat and animal products and have long given up on the illusion of any ethical consumption in capitalism. It just turns out meat is way overpriced and you can make some tasty meals for cheap without meat and most animal products.
I’m a vegetarian just because it’s the cheapest option. Meat is absurd in prices while going fully vegan, where I live, isn’t feasible either.
So I live off a mostly vegetarian diet. It’s not even for ethical reasons. It’s literally a “I want to save money” motivation.
Yeah the only animal I’m tryna save is me. Shits insane rn.
Once governments stop or reduce funding for the meat and dairy industries, prices will continue to go up and more people will be like you. At the end of the day, animal products (especially those from bovines) aren’t super sustainable and cost a lot more than we pay at the supermarket.
deleted by creator
It’s pretty nuts what they’re asking for meat. I don’t do the major shopping in the family but last time I went to get some ground beef… holy sweet baby cheez wiz. I could swear it the price had doubled since the last time I looked (which was probably pre covid).
There are so many great vegetarian recipes out there. Like, I mean, original things that were designed without meat in mind from the start not fake meat stuff like those vegetarian ribs I made one time. shudders
The prices for beyond/impossible are 1:1 with real ground beef at my local grocerywhore.
The choice is so easy.
“the prices are 1:1 with real ground beef”
Okay, does it provide the same nutrients at the same amount of higher? Even then you’re comparing to ground beef, which is too expensive on its own already
I’ll stick to my vegetarian diet
I wish those worked for me. It’s an autistic texture thing for me, so anytime I try substitutes I nearly gag.
I think as something like a burger it’s not that great but stuff like shepherds pie or meatballs where I’m adding other ingredients and seasoning it’s indistinguishable. I even fooled my whole family with some homemade beyond meatballs.
Now I kinda wanna try a hamburger lasagna.
Honestly I feel like the idea of “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” is so lame. Like I understand that you could find something technically ethically wrong with everything, but that statement just feels like a way for people who don’t want to give up certain things to justify themselves.
Capitalism, especially modern day capitalism where the government and companies collaborate, does lead to a lot of ethical issues. And yes, I understand that it is not liveable to give up everything that is unethical. But you can still have boundaries.
I mean like, buying oats and grains from a grocery store, which are typically grown domestically, compared to buying dead abused animals or bananas from a company that uses slave labor. Those are totally different things.
If you prioritize buying things that are made in countries that have better labor laws, and avoid animal products, then that’s a pretty damn good start.
You absolutely can’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
I exclusively eat meat but I consider myself Vegan because my species comes from the Vega star system.
the fact that you label some vegan as purist says more about your own conflicts that the way vegan choose to live. vegan purist is a nonsense. you are either vegan or not.
you choose what you consume, but don’t put the blame on vegan. for me being vegetarian or carnist is not so different. vegetarian are still supporting the status quo and it’s fair to state this fact.
once again it’s your choice. own it.
Sorry, but I just don’t think this attitude is useful for reducing harm to animals. It’s rare for people to hear about veganism and then go straight from eating meat to eating 0 animal products, for 100 reasons. I spent like 10 years vegetarian before finally going vegan.
This overly critical attitude and stereotypes associated with it do a lot to push people away from bothering with making any steps at all.
No one is able to fully eliminate animal harm from their lives, and any steps that anyone is making on the road to reducing it should be applauded. It’s our only option if we want to be anything other than a hated minority.
no. the attitude that is not useful is to make up arguments to justify our choices.
we know the fact. we choose to act on them or not. and this is the same for a lot more topics than veganism.
don’t return the responsibility on the people who act to diminish suffering and waste of ressources. vegetarians like carnists contribute to keep the status quo. it’s not debatable.
you choose to live how you want - within the limit of the law - and it’s totally ok. but own your choices, you don’t need to justify them.
we all are full of contradiction, and it’s more than ok. but don’t make up stuff to make them ok. just accept them.
That pedos shouldn’t be subject to extra-legal punishments. Think being lynched and shit. I also don’t think they should be getting their own special cases in the law beyond those with a clear purpose of preventing reoffending.
Don’t get me wrong, I think they are pure scum.
But things we allow on the basis of the accused being a pedo or terrorist have a habit of spilling over and affecting the general population. A lot of bad laws have made it onto books by blaming these two groups, for example.
A lot of bad laws have made it onto books by blaming these two groups, for example.
You can’t even classify or discuss pedophilia as a sexual disorder and not an intentional decision without sounding like a pedophile.
I think the worst thing we do is basically shut down non-harmful outs.
We attack therapists who don’t outright vilify non-offending pedos, without considering the fact that said pedos come to them because they don’t want to offend, don’t want to hurt.
If these people don’t have harmless outs, they will instead turn to harmful outs and covering up their crimes.
If these people don’t have harmless outs, they will instead turn to harmful outs and covering up their crimes.
Wasn’t it that studies show that in most child abuse cases the abuser is not a pedophile?
Depends what terminology you use. Officially, pedophile means sexually interested in prepubescent children, with a second term, ephebephile, for those with sexual interest in teenagers, but in general usage, ‘pedophile’ usually covers all sexual interest in minors.
So using the official definition you’re correct, as most cases involve teenagers, but most people will just call them pedophiles anyway.
For clarity’s sake, I’ve been using the term pedo in the general sense (all people attracted to minors).
“Conservatives” hate disorder research, because they are most of them.
Yeah, it seems like people just lose all reasoning when that’s the subject of the argument.
An egregious crime should have an egregious sentence but only in accordance with a fair due process. I also feel like far right groups are packing gunpowder in the barrel of the musket with hate for pedophilia (an easy thing for anyone to hate) and are planning to use it to invoke violence on people with fabricated evidence against them. It’s becoming a dangerous powder keg
Absolutely. As for your second point, they do this with LGBT+ groups all the time, trying to tie them to pedophilia to get the FUD going.
Hmmm sweetheart most of the Catholics priests accused of raping kids are homosexuals. Sorry to destroy your simpleton views
I’m a simple person. A bullet to their head
It’s possible to think both “these people deserve to have their fingernails removed” and “a just society cannot inflict cruel punishment”
Pitbulls are not more genetically predisposed towards biting or mauling than other breeds and the supposed “statistical data” on the subject is based around a confluence of inaccurate metrics caused by 1) people not being very good at accurately identifying dog breeds, 2) existing groups that hate pitbulls pushing bad statistics for political purposes, and 3) a self-fulfilling prophecy of pitbulls having a bad reputation and actively being sought out by people who want vicious dogs and who will treat their dogs in such a way as to encourage that behavior. And I say all of this as someone who does not own a pitbull and probably never will.
Pit bulls aren’t genetically predisposed to attacking things, but when they do attack things, they’re genetically predisposed to doing a lot more damage than most other breeds. Gameness is a thing.
No breed of dog should exist because people shouldn’t intentionally breed dogs. It’s inhumane and most of them wind up in kill shelters. If you want a dog, adopt a mutt from a pound. It’ll be healthier and happier than any other dog you could get. That said, breed characteristics are something pushed by dog breeders themselves. The actual science suggests dog breed has little to no impact on temperament. https://www.science.org/content/article/your-dog-s-breed-doesn-t-determine-its-personality-study-suggests
Exactly. They are the assault rifle of dog breeds. People want to preach about bad owners and personal responsibility, but the fact is both are capable of way more damage, and next to no one needs them.
You want to tell me how a chihuahua is more aggressive? When was the last time one ripped out a woman’s throat? Sure, they can be more aggressive, just as someone with a 9mm revolver can be more aggressive than someone with an AR-15. But when someone kills and/or wounds dozens, it’s not done with a 9mm.
So I think your 3rd point is highly likely, but I do disagree about the genetic predisposition. If it can’t be genetically influenced then goldens are not more friendly than others, and smart dogs (poodles, Australian shepherd, etc.) are not actually smarter; they all have the same genetic predisposition.
Having an aggressive breed is possible, but as I said earlier I think the 3rd point pushes up the numbers of maulings quite a bit. I’d add a 4th point of a lot of people being real shit dog owners and not knowing how to properly raise a dog to be socially capable without harming others.
Science suggests this is not actually the case and that environment has a much larger impact on animal behavior than almost any factor: https://www.science.org/content/article/your-dog-s-breed-doesn-t-determine-its-personality-study-suggests
Never said it didn’t, just said the breed does have a disposition to it genetically
Fun fact, Golden Retrievers rank lower than Staffordshires(pitbulls) in many temperament tests…
https://www.aaastateofplay.com/what-dog-breed-has-the-best-temperament/
The problem is that terriers are very susceptible to Kushings disease, which can lead to very irratic behavior. That’s manageable when it’s a 20lb Boston Terrier, but horrifying when it’s a 60 lb terrier of any type.
The meanest, most dangerous dog I knew was an american eskimo owned by my ex wife. This was a 20 pound fluffball, and he looked like he would be friendly and fun to scratch behind the ears.
He loved to bite people, especially children. He had a specific thing he would do when someone looked at him: he would look up and smile, while vigorously wagging his poofy tail. You’d reach down to pet that brilliant white, angel-soft fur, and as soon as you were close enough, he would take a chunk out of your hand or arm. This wasn’t a playful bite, he would bite down hard and hang on.
Omg thank you! The old place, you would’ve been downvoted 200 times and gotten death threats for saying this.
I did say this in the old place and people got PISSED.
I’ll bet they accused you of being an irresponsible pitbull owner and mockingly said some shit like “oh my little sweetie wouldn’t hurt a fly!”
Indeed they did.
Me too. Every. Fucking. Time.
I also want to add that my current dog is a 140lb Bull Mastiff/German Shepherd mix. I adopted her from a friend after my friend realized how big she would likely be.
My dog is now 7 years old and still just acts like a big silly puppy. She’s never bit anyone and is even friends with my cats.
However, if I had small children I probably wouldn’t have her because I’ve seen very nice dogs snap many times. Unfortunately, the size of the dog does correlate with the damage they could potentially do. I also make sure she can’t bite anyone or other pets if I have to take her out. She loves everyone and everything but any dog can snap under the right circumstances and since we are not dogs coming we cannot read their minds and don’t always know what the circumstances are. I wouldn’t rule out rescuing a pitbull. All dogs are not the same. I think it’s all more an issue of responsible pet owners and knowing your dog the best you can.
Never forget though that accidents can and will still happen, even under the best circumstances.
I know a lot of it is from what people did. When I was a kid in the late 80s/early 90s, we lived in a town which had many illegal dog fighters in it. They mostly chose pitbulls but not solely. We ended up saving one puppy from them and he was some sort of mastiff mix.
One of their pitbulls escaped once. I opened my door and it came running from out of nowhere, snatched my cat from beside me and shook her to death in front of me. It was so terrible.
They would do the worst things to these dogs. They would beat them, use food against them and for a long time it was even really popular to feed them gun powder to make them more aggressive. They would condition their dogs in any way they could to make them good fighters and as aggressive as possible.
Pitbulls have a lot of sharp teeth and sturdy, muscular bodies, so they never had a chance with these assholes.
The dog breed I’ve personally seen get out of line as a pet and bite people the most is the German Shepard. That’s just my experience. Either way I believe that dogs are like people. They can have genetic tendencies but their environment will have the largest influence on them most of the time. I’ve never met an aggressive pitbull outside of those terrible dog fighter’s dogs.
Mate, have you seen the statistics?
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/US-Statistics-on-Dog-Bites_2-scaled.jpg
You’re saying that in 90% of cases the wrong dog breed was identified?
On a tangent, I’ve seen many pitbulls breathing heavily. Is this normal for these dogs? Are other dogs races like this?
What? Ours does snore. I never related it to her phenotype (she is a mutt but very pit looking). I agree she doesn’t seem bred for aggression and she isn’t high strung, reasonably relaxed and gentle with the cats, playful and rough with the other dog (they are both pretty young). But she is freakishly strong. Smaller than our other dog but weighs the same, it’s like she is a black hole.
Lilo and Stitch is the best Disney movie.
Many, many spoilers below. But, seriously, this movie is 21 years old. Get over yourselves.
Check it: a young girl adopts an illegal alien (killing machine from deep space) and protects him from the U.S. (and galactic) government (Military-Industrial complexes), while keeping her incredibly depressed sister (slices both ways) from giving up completely as they keep their Indigenous Hawaiian family together in their co-opted homeland. One sister works a series of dead-end tourism jobs; the other has anger issues. The hate each other and love each other fiercely, though they are about 12 years apart in age.
Oh, yeah, and their parents are dead.
Meanwhile, the alien is a political refugee and freedom fighter fleeing from his own people who want him dead for —get this— existing. A lab-grown, indestructible terrorist, he seeks asylum on an island — but he can’t swim.
He does learn to surf.
The only downside to this film is that Disney produced it. And Elvis.
“Ohana means family. Nobody gets left behind or forgotten.”
TikTok and YouTube shorts are brain-rotting garbage, and if you use them regularly you need to stop now. Yes, even if you claim you only watch educational stuff.
Also giving a child under the age of 8 or 9 a personal internet-connected device should be seen on a similar level as neglect if not full-on abuse.
You don’t need to get married or have kids to have a happy and fulfilling life
Copyright should have stayed the original initial 14 years with possible renewal to 28 years. But like in France back then, also include the original authors (last one alive, if several) lifespan. Hence, a copyright would last either the authors lifespans or 28 years, whichever is longer.
Moreover, the patent system is being abused and does not serve the original goal of “any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement there on not before known or used.” It granted the applicant the “sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used” of his invention.. It needs major changes, including the requirement to have the “invention” be under examination by reputable third-party laboratories (such as Intertek, SGI, Underwriters Laboratories, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technischer Überwachungsverein, SGS - Société Générale de Surveillance, etc…) before being granted a patent. Nowadays, patents are given almost willy-nilly to anyone no matter how vague or obvious the supposed invention.
Nowadays, patents are being misused in Patent Ambush mechanisms and scenarios, meanwhile Patent Trolls and Hoarders whole existence is are to impede/obstruct legally and impose exorbitant levies/fees onto organization and companies actually innovating and developing useful art/process/devices. Even more incredible, there are Submarine Patents being hidden away to suddenly take hostage existing products and process of various companies by imposing extortionate royalties.
Those math questions that rely on purposeful ambiguity in order to drive engagement are annoying as fuck. It’s like “congratulations, you just proved that in math (and questions in general) if you’re not clear with what you’re asking, people will get different answers”. What fantastic value! What a novel hypothesis! Now fucking knock it off. I’m tired of literally everyone screaming about how their way is right when it doesn’t fucking matter, the question was asked in a bullshit way in order to piss everyone off.
Bonus, PEMDAS, BEMDAS, PE-MD-AS. It’s a goddamn terrible mnemonic that twists itself in knots to make the acronym work, rather than to make the order of operations clear. Screaming it doesn’t make your shit any clearer anyways.
Join me in RPN land, where we sit by looking smug while people thought different systems of infix notation debate the right answer.
Three are also tests where you are expected to think like the person who made the test to figure or what the “correct” answer us. It’s not really correct, but it is the one that gets you the points.
Also some IQ question have several correct answers, but only one of them gives you the points. Super annoying. If you’re creative and smart enough to come up with a logically consistent answer you’re still not guaranteed to get the “correct” answer.
If they weren’t ambiguous, then you wouldn’t see them getting popular. The difference of opinion drives engagement which means it’s more likely to show in your feed because that’s how most social media algorithms work.
Things that everyone agrees on don’t get engagement, so they don’t bubble up to the top.
Agree!! Things like “No dog breed begins with P!” Are equally annoying for me.
