@noyoushutthefuckupdad I wonder how many QAnon larpers are just people hired to discredit the right? I've met actual socialists and seen them online, I've never actually met someone who believes (or even really knows anything about) QAnon or seen any online.
@alex Sounds more cyberpunk dystopan future than steampunk. needs moar steam engines
@FBICatgirl Also causes massive increase in inflation causing wages to go way up because a loaf of bread costs $15, like a boss
Promise made, promise kept.
Promise made, promise kept.
@TylerAbeoJordan I remember seeing this show. I thought it was strange he was talking a lot about COVID back in 1995. He really was ahead of his time.
@11112011 It's sad that there really isn't a choice for people who don't want more authoritarian governments. Even the LP is turning authoritarian.
@11112011 You know a great way of regulating a dangerous market?
Let the companies that played in that market that were going to go bankrupt and close up shop go bankrupt and close up shop.
Companies aren't run by stupid people. If they see all their competitors go out of business because they dealt in risky markets, then they'll be wary of those markets.
One problem with deregulation is this: Companies know a certain practice is dangerous so they don't do it, then it becomes illegal and companies forget that it's dangerous because it's just illegal. Then when it stops being illegal they rush into it thinking that big daddy government was just being a big old meany, and then they get hit really hard causing a massive problem and nanny staters to say "I told you so!"
Let the companies that played in that market that were going to go bankrupt and close up shop go bankrupt and close up shop.
Companies aren't run by stupid people. If they see all their competitors go out of business because they dealt in risky markets, then they'll be wary of those markets.
One problem with deregulation is this: Companies know a certain practice is dangerous so they don't do it, then it becomes illegal and companies forget that it's dangerous because it's just illegal. Then when it stops being illegal they rush into it thinking that big daddy government was just being a big old meany, and then they get hit really hard causing a massive problem and nanny staters to say "I told you so!"
@jeffcliff
I used to be extremely pro choice. Given that freedom is one of my core values that's understandable. In the past few years my opinion has changed considerably.
The first red pill for me was realizing that men don't have reproductive rights. If a woman gets pregnant and she wants to kill the baby, then you will not have a child. If a pregnant gets pregnant and she doesn't want to kill the baby, then you will have a child. Your wishes are irrelevant, you will be paying that woman child support for the next 20 years.
So something most men realize is that they need to be very careful. Many men actually do practice abstinence because that's the best way to make sure you don't mess up your life before you get your life started. Of those who don't, many use condoms, and many are very selective about who they have sex with.
Even if you don't have sex with a woman, if hypothetically she schemes to acquire your semen in a way other than having sex with you such as by stealing a used condom from your trash can, you are still responsible for the resulting child she has. In some documented cases in some jurisdictions, even if she doesn't acquire your semen she can just claim the child is yours and if circumstances line up you are still responsible for the resulting child she has. In some jurisdictions you could hypothetically have a virgin male paying child support for 20 years. That's the level of reproductive rights men don't have.
The second red pill for me has been watching my own child grow in the womb. A little head, a little body, little arms and little legs, and it's kicking and moving around... That's not a clump of cells, that's a tiny human, and we're still within the time period where abortions are legal in all 50 states. In Canada, there is no limit on when you can have an abortion. You can abort a baby that is fully capable of living outside the womb, and the doctor would presumably at that point have to actively kill this little human that could have survived on its own but for having its life ended.
To sum up, I think there's an argument for the right to equal protection under the law, and I think there's an argument for balance of fundamental human rights where people don't have the right to kill other people no matter how convenient it would be. These are both secular arguments.
So to address the first red pill, if we give women abortion rights then we should give men abortion rights. That doesn't necessarily mean giving men the right to force a woman to have an abortion procedure, but maybe there should be an abortion veto for men to prevent the woman from having an abortion (being one of the two parents and having equal reproductive rights), and we should have an option for men for "legal abortion" where you give up all rights and responsibilities for the child in the womb and we give women the right for the same "legal abortion" in the event that the man uses his veto, and of course for the 9 months of pregnancy if a man practices a veto and she exercises her legal abortion right he'd have a legal obligation to support the woman financially.
As for the second, I can only think that there's a very very very early point where it really is a clump of cells, maybe it could be somewhat acceptable way back then before it's remotely human-like. Maybe when it looks like a prawn, but once you've got this little thing with arms and legs and especially after it grows a face and has a beating heart and a brain that's starting to function we're starting to have to weigh the rights of one human being over another. If at that point you want to legally abort your child, then you have to give it up for adoption rather than have it killed in the womb (or shortly after being expelled from the womb). If the woman and the man both legally abort the child then presumably it would have to be the state that supports the mother during the pregnancy (obviously there's a moral hazard there that would have to be addressed so we don't end up with a bunch of orphans from mothers who would rather be pregnant than working)
I used to be extremely pro choice. Given that freedom is one of my core values that's understandable. In the past few years my opinion has changed considerably.
The first red pill for me was realizing that men don't have reproductive rights. If a woman gets pregnant and she wants to kill the baby, then you will not have a child. If a pregnant gets pregnant and she doesn't want to kill the baby, then you will have a child. Your wishes are irrelevant, you will be paying that woman child support for the next 20 years.
So something most men realize is that they need to be very careful. Many men actually do practice abstinence because that's the best way to make sure you don't mess up your life before you get your life started. Of those who don't, many use condoms, and many are very selective about who they have sex with.
Even if you don't have sex with a woman, if hypothetically she schemes to acquire your semen in a way other than having sex with you such as by stealing a used condom from your trash can, you are still responsible for the resulting child she has. In some documented cases in some jurisdictions, even if she doesn't acquire your semen she can just claim the child is yours and if circumstances line up you are still responsible for the resulting child she has. In some jurisdictions you could hypothetically have a virgin male paying child support for 20 years. That's the level of reproductive rights men don't have.
The second red pill for me has been watching my own child grow in the womb. A little head, a little body, little arms and little legs, and it's kicking and moving around... That's not a clump of cells, that's a tiny human, and we're still within the time period where abortions are legal in all 50 states. In Canada, there is no limit on when you can have an abortion. You can abort a baby that is fully capable of living outside the womb, and the doctor would presumably at that point have to actively kill this little human that could have survived on its own but for having its life ended.
To sum up, I think there's an argument for the right to equal protection under the law, and I think there's an argument for balance of fundamental human rights where people don't have the right to kill other people no matter how convenient it would be. These are both secular arguments.
So to address the first red pill, if we give women abortion rights then we should give men abortion rights. That doesn't necessarily mean giving men the right to force a woman to have an abortion procedure, but maybe there should be an abortion veto for men to prevent the woman from having an abortion (being one of the two parents and having equal reproductive rights), and we should have an option for men for "legal abortion" where you give up all rights and responsibilities for the child in the womb and we give women the right for the same "legal abortion" in the event that the man uses his veto, and of course for the 9 months of pregnancy if a man practices a veto and she exercises her legal abortion right he'd have a legal obligation to support the woman financially.
As for the second, I can only think that there's a very very very early point where it really is a clump of cells, maybe it could be somewhat acceptable way back then before it's remotely human-like. Maybe when it looks like a prawn, but once you've got this little thing with arms and legs and especially after it grows a face and has a beating heart and a brain that's starting to function we're starting to have to weigh the rights of one human being over another. If at that point you want to legally abort your child, then you have to give it up for adoption rather than have it killed in the womb (or shortly after being expelled from the womb). If the woman and the man both legally abort the child then presumably it would have to be the state that supports the mother during the pregnancy (obviously there's a moral hazard there that would have to be addressed so we don't end up with a bunch of orphans from mothers who would rather be pregnant than working)
Woken up in the middle of the night by an amber alert. For a kid that's a 26 hour drive away.
THE KID ISN'T HERE. Maybe you should limit the alerts to some reasonable distance from the place the kid was last seen?
I've seen people argue "but what if the kid is there?" and that's just fucking retarded. If you're going to shut your brain off just because it's a good cause, that's how we ended up giving a bunch of unemployed losers on twitter the ability to destroy a person's life with a few hashtags. "You hate isms, don't you?"
If the kid was seen 4 hours ago, about we limit to a 600km radius around where the kid was last seen? That's all I'm asking here!
THE KID ISN'T HERE. Maybe you should limit the alerts to some reasonable distance from the place the kid was last seen?
I've seen people argue "but what if the kid is there?" and that's just fucking retarded. If you're going to shut your brain off just because it's a good cause, that's how we ended up giving a bunch of unemployed losers on twitter the ability to destroy a person's life with a few hashtags. "You hate isms, don't you?"
If the kid was seen 4 hours ago, about we limit to a 600km radius around where the kid was last seen? That's all I'm asking here!
@Jdogg247 If he just started a fediverse site he'd become the #1 fediverse site, but he can't handle the idea of being unter fediverse.
@fribbledom
Twitter announces "Blue" -- But they don't know why fediverse uber alles. You can't buy it in a store.
Twitter announces "Blue" -- But they don't know why fediverse uber alles. You can't buy it in a store.
We were watching this movie about dogs, and one plot point was that a dog saved this kid from getting hit by a truck and got in trouble for it. I couldn't help but think "Yeah, you prevented truck kun from isekaiing someone, you bastard!"