Alcohol. It's more dangerous than it seems.
Asklemmy
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
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
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
Copyrights
We only really run into trouble when we start treating corporations like people and copyright as a commodity in it's own right.
Non-transferable copyright for the life of the author would be perfectly acceptable.
Nope, copyrights isn't the issue, they enable people to earn money from their creativity, the issue is rather that they are way too long.
Back in the 1780s copyright lasted 14 years after the work was created.
This is fine, the current obscene legnth of copyright is terrible.
Stock trading.
I am fine with companies issuing stock and with people selling that stock back to the company. Everything else should be illegal.
Why wouldn't companies just set themselves up as the exchanges in that scenario?
I don't think it would functionally change anything
I'm envisioning stock as a sort of non-transferable contract between you and a company. There would be no way to pass the stock to a third party.
Mutilating the bodies of people too young or otherwise unable to give consent.
This 100% reads to me as an anti-trans post. Maybe that's not your intent, but that's the way it reads. Esp. since anyone under 18 con not legally give consent to anything.
It's not because young trans people can consent to transitioning. Consenting to sex is not the same thing as consenting to medical procedures. Would you forcibly hold down a 12 year old to give them a vaccine despite them refusing and resisting? If not, then clearly you recognise that under 18s have a degree of bodily autonomy and have to consent to the medical procedures they receive once they are mentally capable of understanding and expressing a choice on those procedures.
It would be pro-trans given the habit of surgical mutilation of intersex infants, which causes a lot of problems down the line for trans intersex people seeking transition surgery that would essentially reverse the mutilation they experienced as infants when they couldn't consent.
If they meant it in an anti-trans way then they would be factually wrong insofar as transition procedures are, by definition, consensual. The non-consensual procedures (which may be the same procedures) are done to "correct" children's (usually, though some cis adults opt to have them done) sexes towards the one they were assigned.
Would you forcibly hold down a 12 year old to give them a vaccine despite them refusing and resisting?
That can and does happen. Do you think that children enjoy getting shots? Children generally do not have bodily autonomy, no. Parents can refuse certain non-critical medical care for their children, even if the child wants that care. The state can force a child to receive certain medical care, even if the child doesn't want it. Whether it's morally right or not to deny a minor bodily autonomy is a different question, but as a matter of law, they do not generally have bodily autonomy.
I want to live in a world where "stop cutting bits of babies dicks off" doesn't require any further explanation.
"No, actually, its you who needs to justify cutting bits of babies dicks off. Not the other way round. Unless its hair, nails or connected to the mum, the default position is actually not to cut bits of the baby off."
- Lying if you're a politician. You should be in a state similar to "under oath" in court, but at all times.
- Advertising. I should have the legal right to not be advertised at. I should have the right to not have to accept advertising in order to access services, especially so if I already pay a subscription to that service. I cannot put into words how much I loath and despise advertising and advertisers. I hate them. Hate, in the real sense of the word.
- Loot boxes in video games, whatever age group the game in question is aimed at, but especially so in kids' games.
- Microtransactions in video games for anything other than non-essential/non-advantageous items, like cosmetics. Even then, their presence should upgrade the PEGI rating to adult/18, regardless of the actual content of the game. This might help prevent their inclusion at all.
- Whatever the fuck is going on in Gaza right now.
- Shielding police or soldiers from prosecution for crimes they've committed. If you stand in the way of the due process any other citizen would face, you should be heavily penalised for that. Like, the murderer soldiers who carried out Bloody Sunday are currently being protected by the British state and its lackeys, and I cannot fathom why. Cops in the US who murder people are frequently protected by unions and get to retire rather than be fired etc. All of that shit should be illegal. Get the fuck out of the way of due process.
- Naziism and related nonsense like Holocaust denial. Germany already has laws about this, but that shit needs to be legally smothered in its crib everywhere.
- Conspiracism surrounding public health issues like vaccines and masks.
- Climate denial.
- Slave labour in prisons.
- Private prisons.
- PACs and donations to PACs.
- Lobbying.
- Joe Rogan.
Lol they asked for what should be illegal not for a list of shit that annoys you๐คฃ
Lobbying.
ITT: people so used to lobbying that they got convinced it's a necessary evil so that minorities and common folks can lobby as well.
It's clearly absurd. Many places call lobbying with its real name: corruption. And there are laws in place to fight it. Are they perfect? No. Is it then more effective to legalyze corruption? OF COURSE NOT ARE YOU INSANE?!?
Lobbying isn't the same as corruption.
Lobbying is informing politicians about an issue while pushing your agenda.
Corruption is giving a politician an incentive to vote as you want.
AI. And PoW-based cryptocurrency.