Fediverse is not for everyone and I’d rather not have fediverse go mainstream, and if it does I’d rather have normies use normie instances like lemmy.world and mastodon.social because that way you can filter them out if you don’t like them.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, I think that’s the one I meant. I didn’t watch either of them.
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
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.
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.
Hard to prepare a kid for adulthood when they’re dead I suppose
What is dead may never die
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
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.
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.
America is a lost cause
Humanity is a lost cause. Still worth fighting for.
Humanity is a rebel without a cause. Fighting is just what we do~
@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.
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.
This guy never saw John Wick.
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.
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?
Case in point
Answer the question settler
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”
Like porn, I know it when I see it.
Tough to legislate, no?
Not really, the tough part is finding people I’d trust to write, enforce, and interpret the legislation.
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.
And homeless people
Yes thank you I forgot to include them, but that’s true.
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
The philosopher of choice for mediocre self-entitled pricks with delusions of grandeur everywhere.
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?
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.
[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
That Amerikans don’t deserve any special consideration, and in fact, deserve a Century of Humiliation where the odious “please collaborate in our genocide so the
cryptofascist oligarchyDemocracy™ thatanglo-saxon, protestant-descended magnates and a small fraction of uplifted misleaderswe All™ enjoy will be saved!” brainworm is concerned.Yes. My principles do matter to me more than you do at this point if you’re going to look me in the face and tell me I have to support a genocider, all so you (or whatever minority you’re about to only care about long enough to use as a cudgel) can remain comfortable.
I suspect your definition of genocide differs from the legal one, because the US hasn’t supported a genocide since we did native Americans dirty. The term had not yet been coined then.
Do you disagree that the US isn’t supporting Israel, then, or do you disagree that what Israel is doing to Palestinians amounts to genocide?
Some reading for you in case you’re somehow not familiar with the topic:
- https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation
- https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against
- https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/israel-palestine-conflict-history-causes-and-international-law
- https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976
- https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67922346
Even if the international courts don’t rule that Israel is committing genocide, that will necessarily have been influenced by the United States’s close ties to Israel, so that they haven’t yet said whether it is or isn’t genocide is irrelevant. According to the evidence we have, it is.
That said, see also the intro of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States
Others, like historian Gary Anderson, contend that genocide does not accurately characterize any aspect of American history, suggesting instead that ethnic cleansing is a more appropriate term.
I’ve seen that same statement by people opposed to the use of the word “genocide” when talking about Israel’s genocide of Palestine, and it’s just as credible there as when “historian Gary Anderson” said it. At best, such a stance is pedantic; at worst, it supports Israel’s genocide by denying and enabling it.
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.
Did I say “ethical”?
Usa obsession with keeping the 4th 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.
The worst part is that I knew that but a movie I saw messed up my memory
Looks like you edited but kept the “th” suffix instead of “nd” :)
Okay mom
Agreed, but it’s the second amendment, not the fourth.
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?
