A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
Humans are the only animals that have to cook their meat to consume it. We're also the only animal that consumes another animals lactate.
The oil industry is the greatest evil humanity has ever created. Conversely the bicycle is probably the greatest.
If it's not open source it's pretty likely it's taking advantage of you.
The only people that don't want you to learn history are the ones that stand to gain from you not knowing it.
I am against a law allowing LGBTQ couples to adopt children in my country (Poland). I am not in any way against it as a general idea, but Polish society is full of full-on bigots and these kids would be subject to so much bullying, it's really against their best interest.
The argument a lot of people raise "if we start doing it then people will get used to it" doesn't work for me, because why should these children be victims of war that is not even theirs to fight? The whole thing makes me sick.
I've been downvoted for this opinion by both sides on Reddit.
I live in a country with a relatively similar political climate as Poland (highly religious, post-communist, wannabe central Europe). And I used to use the same argument when I was surrounded by more conservative people. The argument is IMO frequently invoked not by people who are truly worried about children (which I'll write about below), but by conservatives who need a civilised, "agnostic" argument for their homophobic stances. But ofc it's better to assume good intentions, at least if you don't know anything about the person using the argument (as e.g. here).
The biggest problem with the argument is that it's purely reactive and, under the hood, disingenuous. Children bully each other horribly already for a million stupid reasons - their shoe brand, their phone brand, their behaviour, etc. or just so, for no detectable reason at all. They also bully their teachers and professors. What is done against all this? Absolutely nothing, as far as I see (and I've seen and heard plenty while I was growing up). It is never brought up as a problem in public discourse, nobody seems to care too much. Bullying somehow becomes a big problem and relevant for the lawmaking only when gay parents are a possibility.
In general, from what I've seen, bullies will find just about any reason to target a kid. Adding one more to the roster seems borderline trivial. E.g. a lot of existing bullying is class-based - my younger sister was mildly ostracised in the primary school for a while because she wore the clothes my mother sewed for her, without a brand or anything, suggesting we don't have the money to buy "proper" clothes. Should we, then, try to separate poor kids from the rich kids, so the poor don't get bullied? Or just forbid poor kids from going to school?
Thus, instead of doing anything against the actual problem โ that is, bullying as such โ the laws of the state, the fundamental right of a child to a family, etc. should all buckle down before some child bullying? A child should be denied growing up with a potentially good and loving family with LGBT parents, and instead be adopted by a potentially inferior heterosexual family (assuming the adoption centres have some sort of system to judge the adopters in advance), or stay without a family at all indefinitely, because someone could/will bully them based on their most intimate and safe space, that is their family? Just as it would be monstrous to forbid poor kids from going to school to "protect" them from bullying, it is monstrous to propose "to protect some kids from bullying, we'll deny them from having a family". The whole argument is actually (or should be) an argument for aggressively rethinking and reworking your educational system , parenting and culture in general.
because why should these children be victims of war that is not even theirs to fight
Under the current system they're also victims and involved in this same war - a part of their potential adopters is denied by default, and they stay without a family for longer. Are they not victims here? (Not to get into the issue of measuring potential benefits of having a family against the potential negatives of bullying, it's purely arbitrary and depends on the given culture too.)
On the other hand, I do think the whole discussion has been derailed by overly focusing on this as an LGBT issue rather than an issue of children without families. So there's some merit at least in the general approach of the argument you present (the children are those whose well-being is most important here), but it leads to the wrong conclusion, usually because it's invoked by people who really just want to get to that conclusion one way or another, rather than helping the kids.
The stuffing is the worst part of an Oreo.
Pinapples did nothing wrong
Python is just as bad if not worse then JavaScript. The fact that if you misspell a variable name, instead of giving an error like any sane language, Python code will still run, but do something different then it looks like it does, creating a hard to spot bug is just awful. The amount of time I have spent debugging python code only to find a tiny typo that any sane language would have caught before the code even ran is several weeks now, I can't imagine how much collective time has been lost over this, and a few other, horrible languages.
I greatly despise all facial hair.
Movies and TV are boring. In the past two decades, there's been a small handful of stuff that's watchable, but most of the media is like, painfully boring.
The people in this thread calling for AI overlords to take over for our governments and leaders dont understand that AI is trained to mimic human speech and behavior, not improve on it.
The rise of feminism has seen the steady devaluation of the contribution of men in those areas of society where they should be most active. Rather than celebrate and recognise what's right, the focus is on attacking what's wrong.
The majority of men are lonely, isolated and uncared for. Many feel unvalued, unsafe and vulnerable. There is less community support for men than there has been in the past, less institutional support, and a continued decline in the tolerance of men being in shared places. The minimisation of value in societal roles is yet another way that men are cut off.
This seems to escape the vision of feminism. There is always claim of ideological alignment, where the empowerment of women directly benefits men, but when it comes to any form of concrete action that helps men that need help, or celebrates men that contribute - it's nowhere to be seen.
Men kill themselves. They kill themselves. In their thousands. Leaving cratered families, trauma, guilt from the survivors, many of whom are female. Because they feel valueless, helpless and can't see a purpose to going on.
Accountability goes both ways. In demanding support from men, feminism must support men.
The majority of men are lonely, isolated and uncared for
Suicide rates are down amongst the youngest, the highest suicide rates are from people over 50 and specifically, white people over 50
The average Lemmy user knows fuck all about, security, privacy, operating systems, act like they are unique, and are inclusive despite wanting more people to understand more about the way they see things.
Libertarianism and anarchism aren't cool and don't work.
You are a part of the problem if you hate Nintendo but think you are helping the developer by pirating their games.
You are an even bigger problem to bringing more people to your way of thinking if you are constantly negative about those people buying something they like just because you wouldn't.
Thinking you are alternative because everything you think is mainstream makes you mainstream.
Your choice of FOSS and OS doesn't make that product good by design. Just because you can't operate and OS doesn't make that OS bad.
Jesus won't come for his followers until after the great tribulation. So all these people believing in the rapture and post apocalyptic world are wrong. That's why evangelical Christians don't believe in global climate change because it won't affect them if Jesus scoops them up before they face consequences.
Americans really think they own the world sometimes, and truly underestimate the disdain the world has for them.