JeSuisUnHombre

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

To build on what @xmunk said, the other old man did not stand a chance this year and only won 2020 because of Covid

[–] [email protected] 3 points 20 hours ago

Bernie disagrees with you

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I have no way of knowing if any of that is true

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, protecting people is always the first priority, otherwise there just wouldn't be a justice system. That doesn't mean punishing people for wrongdoings.

Yes, I think hierarchy is bad in general, it defines people as not equal. You can't have a hierarchy of equal members. It has lead to those higher up thinking the laws for us don't fully apply to them, either because we're less than human or because they're more than human. Even the hierarchy of parents has turned children into property instead of, again, people who need help. It might even be why people are more tolerant of shitty behavior, because they don't feel high up enough in the hierarchy to be able to do anything about it.

Part of the critique of that phrase is its seeming dismissal of context and nuance. Authoritarianism isn't really a system of thought, but even without mentioning that, you're going to have a tough time drawing hard lines around behavior without infringing on valid personal freedoms. Though, in general, seeing how your beliefs map onto different ideas is a good way to interrogate yourself and try to determine if you should keep that belief as is. If an idea of yours seems to tie in with a system of thought you're opposed to, maybe ask yourself why that is and what aspects you identify with versus the aspects you can do without.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

You commented twice and apparently I attached my response to the one you deleted so I wanted repost that response with the context that the other comment included the phrase "an evil man"

Of course protecting the public is the first priority, otherwise there just wouldn't be a justice system. But your willingness to label a person as evil keeps you open to calling whole groups of people evil (like say immigrants). That actually invites evil to yourself and society because 'prison is for evil people, I'm not in prison so I must not be evil' when in reality everyone is capable of evil and should always be guarding against those thoughts, not dismissing them as impossibilities.>

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

You definitely have some good ideas about an alternative system, but you also have some nonsense in that first paragraph.

The idea of someone deserving punishment is inherently dehumanizing. It's not possible to punish someone unless they are beneath you. Thinking another human is lesser than you defines them as less than human.

Hard lines of behavior? That's just what laws are, like we currently have. Yes, look at where we are now with the centuries long mentality of people deserving punishment. The rich and powerful are not subjected to the law in the same way because, to use your words, "authoritarian systems especially are prone to being taken over by groups with special interests, whoch not only guts their effectiveness but completely revrses their intended goals if they were noble ones." Seriously though, "hard lines of behavior" is an extremely authoritarian phrase.

There are no "evil people" there are only evil actions. Every single person has the capacity for evil. We're going to be stuck where we're at until we collectively recognize that truth.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Yeah, making election day a national holiday doesn't help those of us who don't get most holidays off.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Of course protecting the public is the first priority, otherwise there just wouldn't be a justice system. But your willingness to label a person as evil keeps you open to calling whole groups of people evil (like say immigrants). That actually invites evil to yourself and society because 'prison is for evil people, I'm not in prison so I must not be evil' when in reality everyone is capable of evil and should always be guarding against those thoughts, not dismissing them as impossibilities.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (5 children)

In line with the rest of my paragraph, labeling them as bad people who deserve bad things is very authoritarian and dehumanizing. That's the type of rhetoric someone like Trump uses. The more comfortable society is with that rhetoric the more susceptible we are to a fascist takeover.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago (14 children)

You seem unable to separate rehabilitation / treatment for mental health from medical interventions and drugs.

What I'm arguing is that punishment is not justice. No person should have the right to dole out punishments to another. To think otherwise betrays a very authoritarian mindset.

I don't have a 500 page document detailing a new version of our justice system, partly because, as you correctly stated, there isn't a one size fits all solution. But I know whatever system that is should be focused on empathy and compassion, not making people pay for their misdeeds.

But even if I completely agreed with what you're saying, I would still think it's gross to cheer for anyone being sent to "an atrocity that needs to be dismantled and replaced", especially if it's for the rest of their lives.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (16 children)

I don't know why you think there's more autonomy in a mental institution than prison, or why you keep bringing up forcing drugs and surgery on people like that's the only way to help people with mental health issues. Your stance is still not making sense from a moral standpoint.

Edit: just want to note that the first sentence of the comment above wasn't there when reply was written

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (18 children)

Why do you think it's immoral to involuntarily institutionalize but moral to lock them in a jail cell?

 

Was talking about hot ones and how the premise isn't totally random for the states. Got to thinking about what celebrity interview shows exist out there that are actually fucking bonkers but my googling didn't turn anything up.

So anyone know of any truly weird premises that have been produced? Any language, any medium (TV, internet, etc), any year. Disqualifying factors would be, it can't be scripted (like between two ferns), and the primary reason the interviewee is there has to be for the interview (as in no game shows). It should also be primarily interviewing celebrities and important people, but that can be a soft rule.

(I'm especially hoping for some bonkers premises from Japan.)

 

Way late edit here, I agree with the disapproval of my statement. I was thinking about how LLM's kind of work the same way. Designed by humans to make something humans can already do but thousands of times faster. However "revolutionary" was very much the wrong word choice.

 

I saw someone say it was because she's supporting dems but that doesn't seem like enough for the amount of dunking I've seen. Did y'all think she was so far to the left that that would be a betrayal? I've typically thought of her as a progressive more than a leftist. Is there some statement she made I'm not aware of?

 

w(uh)man to w(ih)men

 

The snake (of the trouser variety) tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit (hanky panky) that she shares with Adam. The consequence of which is painful childbirth.

They're even specifically stated to be naked for this situation.

 

No weed, no alcohol, no caffeine, no meds, nothing legal or illegal.

If this describes you, how you doing with your rawdogging of reality?

 

This probably isn't the best place for this but something I want to have been mentioned.

Obviously porn in general is fine, even the more risqué or honestly even unsanitary isn't really a problem to me. And yes I understand all the women are of legal and there's verification. But isn't this still problematic? They're being sexualized for the reason of looking like they are too young to be sexualized. That seems like a great way to encourage pedophilia. It's a gross concept, especially given the median age on this platform.

And yes, I've blocked it for myself because I'm too old to want to see that when I'm scrolling /all. But I still think it's a bad message to leave out there.

 

When I lie, it's most often a lie of omission. Are you more of a falsehood teller? Or do you lie out of ignorance? Or is there a particular subject you're likely to lie about? Or a person who you tell most of your lies to?

Do you always tell the truth? If yes what type of lie was that?

view more: next ›