well. argue is probably too strong, I'm just here to discuss things. but that will likely cause arguments. this is mainly so I don't clog my main
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Text
23K notes
·
View notes
Text
Imma be honest, this read like a parody the first time i saw it
I think we should not allow supermarkets to operate unless at least a certain fraction of what they sell is "affordable foods". Before a supermarket can open, it must testify in hearings and weather appeals and community initiatives to ensure it provides enough affordable foods. This will surely make sure that more food, especially affordable such, is provided and that no one starves or has to eat gruel.
509 notes
·
View notes
Text
It's called "stand point epistemology" and it is very much detrimental to conversations like this
Remembering the time my old nb roommate who went to an LGBT law conference and was heaping the absolute biggest bitchfit texting me cause “some cis guy” was talking about trans people and trans men in particular and my roommate refused to listen to what this guy said cause “why should I listen to him” and I said “are you sure he’s cis?” And then towards the end of the presentation he said something that indicated to the crowd he was a trans man and then suddenly my roommate started to consider what had been shared.
Absolute loser behavior, but not completely unique. We’ve all gotta stop saying only x people can talk about x issues for us to listen. Too many people in the in group will have dogshit takes no one wants to challenge because “well, they are x identity.” Likewise, plenty of people on the out group actually know what they’re talking about and have something to contribute to the conversation.
Especially when it comes to sexuality and gender, you relying on someone outing themselves or you clocking them to decide whether their words have merit is shitty, because you won’t always know if they ARE the group “allowed” to talk about it. And even beyond that, I knew a fuckload about transness before I realized I was trans, it helped me REALIZE I was trans. “Listen to x voices” got sooooo warped in the discourse.
45K notes
·
View notes
Photo
Do you understand how vicious wolves can be?
Folk stories of wolves as cruel tyrants of the land don't come about for nothing.
This might solve the problem. But it probably won't last forever. Being dismissive of this problem cause they're French is just stupid


Today I learned the French think that they shouldn’t see nature being nature. Perhaps the wolves could go to the grocery store instead lol
94 notes
·
View notes
Text
That's also just a dishonest way of representing how AI image generation works. That's not even a good description of Image to Image type stuff. Which is closest to what they're describing.
reminder that digital piracy is completely and utterly morally correct. "you wouldn't download a car" yes i fucking would. goodnight.
25K notes
·
View notes
Photo
Maybe but that's besides the point.
If the wolves are chasing into residential property, its probably time to knock em back some


Today I learned the French think that they shouldn’t see nature being nature. Perhaps the wolves could go to the grocery store instead lol
94 notes
·
View notes
Photo
Actually I think it's completely reasonable to not want predators bigger than you to be comfortable chasing prey into your yard.
That's a prelude to something worse than a deer being attacked back there


Today I learned the French think that they shouldn’t see nature being nature. Perhaps the wolves could go to the grocery store instead lol
94 notes
·
View notes
Text
I also have some bad news for them
oc advice: don’t make your oc flashy looking or give them a tragic backstory or a weird name or
berserk: our protag is 6’8. he is so fucking huge he doesn’t fit in a panel unless the panel is focused on him. his entire life is just a massive series of unfortunate events starting from the day of his birth when he was born from a corpse hanging from a tree . he has a sword that is the same size as him and wears all black evil cursed hellhound themed armour that drinks his blood. he has an onscreen kill count of over 1000. literally everyone wants to fuck him. the first panel of berserk is a sex scene with his bootyass out. one of the main antagonists ruined everything partially because he was so horny for him. he is called guts. fuck yeah
78K notes
·
View notes
Text
I don't think "should" adds a moral component necessarily. Just a "suggested action".
Unless we perscribe taking all avenues of self betterment as moral. Which, fair enough I suppose
Scalpers: There is a low supply and high demand for PS5s right now. I will buy up a bunch of them at market price just to resell at my new inflated price for personal profit
Average Person: Dude, you’re scum. This should be illegal
Scalpers: There is a low supply and high need for affordable housing right now. I will buy up a bunch of houses at their affordable price just to charge people my new inflated monthly price to live in them, without actually owning them. For personal profit.
Average Person: You may not like it, but this is a valid business practice and a necessary part of adult life. This is our free market at work, and-
36K notes
·
View notes
Text
This issue is that every aspect of the sentence is vague and up to interpretation. And who sets the standards?
What counts as "is able to give"? Can I say, "no, actually I don't think I will,"? Does giving a gift ri friends or family count as "giving" in this context? What is giving in this context?
Its vaugento where it can be easily abused
"you don't owe anybody anything" has done irreparable damage to the minds of the youth
59K notes
·
View notes
Text
I feel like OP messed up and had a key typo that fucks up the post, ie. "Wouldnt" instead of "would". Cause it reads like they're saying "it's unreasonable to just assume someone would make and hyper distribute this type of potion, meaning trans people as we conceive tbem would still exist and not be magic poofed into cis people"
But that might just be me
People who object to trans people being in fantasy are wild. As though some silly-hatted alchemist wouldn't simply invent Almazar's Gender Fluid in an afternoon and distribute it to every dungeon chest in the land. It's Common on the loot table and half the goblins drop it. You can brew it yourself with three mushrooms and eight snail shells. It sells for 1 copper at the merchant because the supply is so abundant. You fool. You melon. You absolute buffoon. The limits of what you are willing to imagine are an epitaph you wrote for your own freedom.
49K notes
·
View notes
Text
So are you like actually listening to the people voicing critiques that di believe in the whole "right to suicide" stuff or are you just looking st the responses that let you tell yourself a flattering story and then act like you've successfully defended the thing you think you're defending?
Because your narrative fails at the story of the paralympian being recommended MAID over frustration at not getting a chair lift for her home. It fails at the scenes of apparent systemic abandonment of some patients that decided to take the MAID course.
You think you're simply arguing for something as....benign as "people have the right to suicide: when MAID seems to be falling to certain perverse incentives
And so you don't like, argue as if I'm coming from nowhere here's two videos covering the issues people are finding in the MAID stuff
“we shouldn’t let people commit medically assisted suicide because we should fix the health care system that is failing them instead”
is equivalent to
“we shouldn’t let patients with agonizing terminal cancer commit medically assisted suicide because we should just cure cancer, and they should just hang in there until we make the cure for cancer”
and that’s obviously fucking insane, right?
no, wait, it’s worse! because the number of people trying to cure cancer instead of just telling flattering stories to themselves is NOT ZERO, and they are able to form the intent to try and cure cancer, and look at evidence and reality to determine if they are doing something useful. this makes it more realistic than fixing health care because everyone upset about MAID falls into one of two groups: “we should fix this by everyone following my religion something something culture of life” or “we should fix this by something something mumble mumble overthrow capitalism”
nobody wants to fix it they just want to flatter themselves
they want other people to be in unbearable agony rather than be temporarily saddened by hearing about their deaths and even then their only response is to go “now is when I should tell everyone they should all have every single one of my opinions”
72 notes
·
View notes
Text
I think its abstract enough to where that realization can be pushed back enough to where it doesn't click
And no, I know doctors are bring it up to patients in the context of "this will save us, the national healthcare service, alot of money not having to treat you!"
Do you actually know anything about what's being talked about or are you just accepting faulty info because it gives you a chance to morally grandstand about....thinking suicide is good?
I keep seeing this massive submarine bioconservative pushback against assisted dying in Canada, even internationally. Given the magnitude and popularity of it, it seems inevitable that it’ll succeed and it’ll go back to being banned or alomost entirely inaccessible. If you’re on the left the most common argument you’ve likely seen against this is that disabled people are being offered death instead of medical support or personal caregivers, and oh isn’t that basically a Nazi thing or whatever, so just to clarify for people who aren’t Canadian, this program did not replace better support for disabled people. And if we get rid of it, of course it won’t be replaced by better support for disabled people. One doesn’t need to look very far away, or far into the past, to see just how badly people with severe disabilities get treated in societies where they also don’t have access to assisted dying!
Most of the arguments you see about how this is a Big Social Problem just boil down to “a health provider broached the topic with me and I was offended,” which I hope I don’t need to say isn’t a good reason to change who has access to it. But there is an argument there for changing the process by which it’s handled: namely, I think people are right to be worried that some people might get pressured into it by health providers, because we already see problems of that type in the existing system: poor people getting conned into having a hysterectomy because someone decides they’re having too many babies, and so forth. But the best approach there is probably just to have a rule that it can’t be raised individually by health workers unless the patient raises it first, and that general information about it (e.g. pamphlets, website information, PSAs) are widely available and publicized so that people know it’s an option. That would make sense as a targeted intervention designed to head off the worst concerns! But of course we’re not going to get that, because the pushback isn’t substantively driven by concerns of that type, it’s driven by bioconservatives who feel that suicide is inherently wrong and aren’t being honest about it.
Anyway, keep an eye on it. The media push has been sufficiently organized that I expect it will continue until the law is repealed.
744 notes
·
View notes
Text
Okay so you do understand that most people, including most people that attempted suicide, see suicidal ideation and following it as in a super irrational and a not at all proper state of mind. And most people (whether you agree with this or not) DO think "maybe allowing people either close to me or just generally "in front" of me to do sometimes so permanent on so fleeting an irrationality is bad". And when the government says "yeah we'll set up a system that has perverse incentives to lead Healthcare providers to push people to take this option they otherwise wouldnt" that is going to be seen as a bad thing
Which is just a long way of saying, maybe some aspect of your own weird mentality is stopping you from seeing why people take issue with MAID and just going "but people have the RIGHT to destroy themselves!!!" is terribly unconvincing
I keep seeing this massive submarine bioconservative pushback against assisted dying in Canada, even internationally. Given the magnitude and popularity of it, it seems inevitable that it’ll succeed and it’ll go back to being banned or alomost entirely inaccessible. If you’re on the left the most common argument you’ve likely seen against this is that disabled people are being offered death instead of medical support or personal caregivers, and oh isn’t that basically a Nazi thing or whatever, so just to clarify for people who aren’t Canadian, this program did not replace better support for disabled people. And if we get rid of it, of course it won’t be replaced by better support for disabled people. One doesn’t need to look very far away, or far into the past, to see just how badly people with severe disabilities get treated in societies where they also don’t have access to assisted dying!
Most of the arguments you see about how this is a Big Social Problem just boil down to “a health provider broached the topic with me and I was offended,” which I hope I don’t need to say isn’t a good reason to change who has access to it. But there is an argument there for changing the process by which it’s handled: namely, I think people are right to be worried that some people might get pressured into it by health providers, because we already see problems of that type in the existing system: poor people getting conned into having a hysterectomy because someone decides they’re having too many babies, and so forth. But the best approach there is probably just to have a rule that it can’t be raised individually by health workers unless the patient raises it first, and that general information about it (e.g. pamphlets, website information, PSAs) are widely available and publicized so that people know it’s an option. That would make sense as a targeted intervention designed to head off the worst concerns! But of course we’re not going to get that, because the pushback isn’t substantively driven by concerns of that type, it’s driven by bioconservatives who feel that suicide is inherently wrong and aren’t being honest about it.
Anyway, keep an eye on it. The media push has been sufficiently organized that I expect it will continue until the law is repealed.
744 notes
·
View notes
Note
Have actually looked into the stories surrounding it or are you making assumptions that flatter your personal position?
I feel like there is a difference between "The government should not be allowed to provide the option to kill people as part of their medical care, especially when it's being offered to non-suicidal people as a cheaper alternative to care" and "suicide should be illegal and cops need to intervene if someone tries to do it themselves". You frequently bring up the latter when you see people upset about the former, but those are not the same position.
because from what I have a seen, a great deal of people claiming that MAID is being pushed on poor people actually have no reason to think that other than "well poor people are using it, it must be forced on them"
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Well people typically consider suicide Not Good for pretty simple, understandable reasons, as most (meaning 99.9%) don't share your almost hyper nihilism.
And this whole thread is also ignoring how this isn't "people who are genuinely suffering and wish to die despite alternatives" that's recieving the outrage (although I imagine people that thing Suicide Bad are still negative on that). It's "people that don't want to die but are effectively pushed to "assisted dying" by government malfeasance so the Canadian public Healthcare can save some money. This is documented and it upsets people when it seems to be pushed even further.
And I say this because, again, very few if any people actually believe everyone would actually be better off dead
I keep seeing this massive submarine bioconservative pushback against assisted dying in Canada, even internationally. Given the magnitude and popularity of it, it seems inevitable that it’ll succeed and it’ll go back to being banned or alomost entirely inaccessible. If you’re on the left the most common argument you’ve likely seen against this is that disabled people are being offered death instead of medical support or personal caregivers, and oh isn’t that basically a Nazi thing or whatever, so just to clarify for people who aren’t Canadian, this program did not replace better support for disabled people. And if we get rid of it, of course it won’t be replaced by better support for disabled people. One doesn’t need to look very far away, or far into the past, to see just how badly people with severe disabilities get treated in societies where they also don’t have access to assisted dying!
Most of the arguments you see about how this is a Big Social Problem just boil down to “a health provider broached the topic with me and I was offended,” which I hope I don’t need to say isn’t a good reason to change who has access to it. But there is an argument there for changing the process by which it’s handled: namely, I think people are right to be worried that some people might get pressured into it by health providers, because we already see problems of that type in the existing system: poor people getting conned into having a hysterectomy because someone decides they’re having too many babies, and so forth. But the best approach there is probably just to have a rule that it can’t be raised individually by health workers unless the patient raises it first, and that general information about it (e.g. pamphlets, website information, PSAs) are widely available and publicized so that people know it’s an option. That would make sense as a targeted intervention designed to head off the worst concerns! But of course we’re not going to get that, because the pushback isn’t substantively driven by concerns of that type, it’s driven by bioconservatives who feel that suicide is inherently wrong and aren’t being honest about it.
Anyway, keep an eye on it. The media push has been sufficiently organized that I expect it will continue until the law is repealed.
744 notes
·
View notes
Text
Unless a new statemen came out, if they're referring to the Info Wars segment, he didn't say he was a Nazi, he said a very milqetoast Christian sentiment "hate the sin love the sinner" in the most backwards, nonsense way possible. That's very different from saying he's a nazi.
And I don't even think he's a black supremacist. I do genuinely believe he's an over inflated idiot going through a severe stage of dissociating with reality likely in part from having a manic episode. Those are all very different things
As a Jewish person who suffers from bipolar disorder, I have no sympathy for Kanye West. Bipolar disorder turned me into an apathetic, irresponsible person, sure, but it never turned me into a fucking Nazi. There is no manic episode that could make me shout racist slurs, or spew such vile things. When I was manic, I turned into a promiscuous alcoholic, not a bigot. Turning into a Nazi isn't in the DSM5, I can assure you.
Kanye West has more followers on Twitter than there are Jews worldwide. He is one of the most famous people on earth. The fact he can go on an antisemitic rampage without consequences is terrifying. If you're not a Jew, your Jewish friends need your allyship more than ever right now.
Kanye West isn't an asshole because he's bipolar. He's a racist, antisemitic asshole who happens to be bipolar.
67K notes
·
View notes