I could probably do a better job running your country than the guy you elected since I know when to give the problem to someone more qualified.
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
86 points (95.7% liked)
Asklemmy
49160 readers
472 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Negative motivation is the real way to make changes.
It's great to have goals and positive things to look forward to when you reach those goals.
But to be consistent in doing the hard work to reach that goal it's better to scare the shit out of your self by asking
"what happens to me if I don't do the work?"
I hate shrimp, fuck those things they suck and arenβt worth whatever premium BS the going market price is
Pinapples did nothing wrong
Ironically I foreshadowed one of these on one of my recently previous comments. The Greeks/Spartans are wayyyy overrated as far as history goes, as in I couldn't not understate how overrated they are. None of their claims to fame are wholly true in the least. For example, they were said to have invented democracy, but every two rulers was a tyrant who justified their tyranny with the fact Zeus himself was a tyrant. He and the other gods were always justified in that "they're the gods, they can do what they want", which would make sense if they were creator gods, but legend has it Zeus fought the creator god... and ate him... for power, and then presided over the gods for eternity, because apparently the democratic process (which didn't include women, immigrants, or non-home-owners anyways) does not befit the gods and so you have a mentally ill, Typhon-obsessed role model at the helm. They spend their days indulging themselves at the expense of others in such an extreme way that they make it sound like asexuality didn't exist, because it was the Greek view that human nature was the same for everyone. And this tyranny they tried spreading all over the world because they thought it was what democracy was, which brings us to Alexander the Great, the world's most undeserving "great" conqueror. Imagine trying to enact revenge for a conquest on your land that happened more than two hundred years ago, having the historical records lie to inflate you, and once you get even with your enemies, decide that while you're at it you should conquer people further East, all while being unable to actually properly care for the lands you conquered.
I am currently taking history and get tired of seeing people say "the Greeks were the best". When the Ottomans invaded Greece, the love was so great that people volunteered from random nations to travel to Greece to fight the Ottomans. I don't care for the Ottomans, but where was this love for, say, Iceland, who had a better democracy? Or the Iroquois who also had an actual democracy? Online and in movies, Greece gets all the exposure.
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 β that is, bullying as such β 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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Nuking Japan was in proportion and in service to the United States' legitimate military objectives.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Old Skuamorphism (correct me if I spelled it wrong) on iPhones were so nice
Legend of Zelda breath of the wild is the absolute worst Zelda I've ever played. I've played and beaten the following: OoT, MM, SS, ALttP, ALbW, LA, Zelda 2. I've almost beaten wind Waker and twilight princess, so you could say I've played a few Zelda games.
BotW is a mix of assassins creed, Minecraft, and Zelda characters with shit dungeons. The divine beasts are garbage replacements for dungeons and shrines are not a replacement for dungeons either, it's just a terrible Zelda, but a decent open world game.