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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
This guy never saw John Wick.
Suburban homeowners are the real “welfare queens.”
The doomsday argument is correct, and becomes more obviously correct with each passing day.
Children should not be exposed to advertising at a young age (below 11/12 years old)
Just say 11 months damn
that wouldnt account for leap days tho :/
How about: (334/365 … 335/366) years
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
@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.
Humans are doomed, destroy themselves one way or another.
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.
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
Yeah, you get downvoted because we don’t waste breath on transphobes. Genetics has already been accepted by actual scientists, rather than by Quora Top Minds as a spectrum.
Read a book, read an article, read something you absolute regress
In case you're too lazy to click a link:
In an additional layer of complexity, the gender with which a person identifies does not always align with the sex they* are assigned at birth, and they may not be wholly male or female. The more we learn about sex and gender, the more these attributes appear to exist on a spectrum.
Nah I think it’s because your reply indicates you missed the point.
Yes, it does require you think about it a little bit
100% agree with everything you said.
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.
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:
-
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.
-
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’.
-
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.)
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.
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.
Brain like squirrels, duh.
Squirrel spotted
The Batman > The Dark Knight
Booooo
I’m upvoting because this is the first actual hot take I found after minutes of scrolling
My hot take: You shouldn’t downvote comments you disagree with in a thread asking for hot takes.
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.
I have always upvoted comments I disagree with if they are using good arguments. I save downvotes for hate and bad faith.
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
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?”
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! 🦅
Agreed, but it’s the second amendment, not the fourth.
Looks like you edited but kept the “th” suffix instead of “nd” :)
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”
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?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
In what world does “I gotta find my deadbeat dad” beat out New Vegas? Link me up with your plug; I want whatever you’re smokin on
Fallout New Vegas has better writing than 3
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.
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:
- it is expensive
- it is increasing demand for food, raising the price
- 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 ?
- Not even in the top ten list of choices I make leading to not enough money
- Perhaps on the shortest timescale, but increasing the market for food reduces prices long term
- Refutes my original claim without argument, so I disagree unless you’ve got more to back this up.
- 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.
- you might be right about that tbh, although i would like a source.
- 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.
If for no other reason, then in the name of your own bank account.
My bank account’s biggest limitation is my brain cycles.
more relatable than I wish it was.
Especially if that’s food that’s going to negatively impact your own health, like junk food.
