On the last day of my college internship a senior VP at my little company invited me into his office presumably to get to know me prior to extending a full-time offer. To break the ice he asked me what my favorite Star Wars movie was. I smiled and replied that I could never get through any of them.
As I was uttering these words I began to notice the giant Star Wars poster directly behind the gentleman. It then dawned on me that his office was chalk full of Star Wars memorabilia.
The man did not ask me any further questions. He shook my hand, thanked me for my great work, and I never stepped foot into those offices ever again.
If I come across you in a dark alley and we're all alone then you better be ready cos I'll accept your opinion and offer some other suggestions of movies that we might like, such as all 3 Lord of the Rings (extended editions of course).
The average person shouldn’t be allowed to drive. It’s extremely dangerous and most people are desensitized to it and absolutely don’t take the natural responsibility towards others that comes with having the ability to kill someone with a finger twitch (or a slight lapse in attention) seriously enough. I don’t think it would be allowed if it was just invented this year.
This is why I personally am looking forward to fully self-driving cars. We’re a long way off, but when self-driving cars can completely replace the human element, I think the world will be a much safer place.
How about spacial inefficiency? A car only carries 1-6 people compared to a train which carries dozens or even hundreds. Or a bus which carries dozens.
Traffic and parking are the biggest issue i see with cars and space efficiency. Both can be significantly improved on with self driving. Especially if most people opt for public ownership of cars and not private. Something think will become more popular as self driving takes over and lowers the cost of taking the self driving equivalent of a taxi or Uber.
By the way i think self driving cars will make trains more popular. As trains suck at first and last mile transportation. Self driving solves the first and last mile issues.
If we're going to opt for public ownership then why would you choose the less efficient single passenger method over already-established public infrastructure like trains and trams and buses which have been proven to work well in other countries?
Also please elaborate on how self driving cars will improve parking issues. And as for traffic, while self-driving cars will be less likely to cause accidents and jams, hundreds of independent low-capacity vehicles are in no way more effective than a single locomotive carrying those hundreds of people in a smaller space.
You're allowed to like self-driving cars, but buses and trains are objectively more efficient in the large scale and all you have to do is acknowledge that. The more people realize this, the more room there is for us to make progress
If we’re going to opt for public ownership then why would you choose the less efficient single passenger method over already-established public infrastructure like trains and trams and buses which have been proven to work well in other countries?
Simple we have already chosen cars in the US. It is far easier to use the existing roads to our advantage then try and redesign the entire country to fit a train and tram and bus model.
Also please elaborate on how self driving cars will improve parking issues.
In a public car the car will drop people off and drive away to pick up other people. There would be no need parking at all. Just a small drop off and pickup location.
Now this won't work as well if we are talking about private ownership cars, but it would be better as the car can drop you off and then drive to a centralized parking location. This would remove the need for street parking or parking lots next to restaurants and stores. Or if your planning to stay a long time for exmaple if your going to work for 8 hours. I think many people might want rent out their car during the day. Car drops me off at work and I tell the car to join the "public car" network for 8 hours and it can go find some people to transport.
And as for traffic, while self-driving cars will be less likely to cause accidents and jams, hundreds of independent low-capacity vehicles are in no way more effective than a single locomotive carrying those hundreds of people in a smaller space.
Oh sure it won't be as effective but it will be much better then what we have now. And there are benefits cars have over trains. For example after a the world pandemic scare I find traveling in my own space a much more pleasant experience then sharing with many other people. Also I really like listening to music in a car as full volume very enjoyable experience that you just can't do on a public train :). A car will be a single vehicle to my destination, I can get in a fall asleep if I want. Buses and trains are usually multiple vehicles and you need to be some what alert to know when your stop is.
what you say makes sense, not saying you're completely wrong, but your whole argument is based off the fact that we have already chosen cars. But simply doubling down on a worse solution just puts us deeper in to the hole, instead of making the more difficult decision of redirecting some of our massive amounts of GDP in to larger scale projects (yknow instead of wasting billions on military spending & corporate bailouts) such as making the investment into the development of a proper rail network BESIDE our existing infrastructure, like china has done for example.
(not supporting china but it is true that they have made massive progress in public transportation across a country equally large as ours, in a relatively very short time)
Too many places let you drive if you do the happy path stuff right: stopping at a stop sign, changing lanes safely, etc. But the most important time of your driving is when you're about to hit a semitruck and you need to get your car out of the way, and there is no training material for this at all. People often panic and slam the brakes and aggressively turn the wheel, which is a perfect setup for understeer and losing control of your car. They are literally getting in a situation where they are about to die and they choose to greatly increase their risk due to negligence.
It's cheaper to run simulators than purchase cars and hire trainers. Get em in nasty situations and teach them how to get out of it. For real, if mom and dad can't evade sinking their freeway missile into a van full of kids, they shouldn't be able to get behind the wheel and be presented with opportunities where this might happen any time they drive.
Maybe doing this will also make people more hesitant to get behind the wheel. If more people are aware of the risks of driving, maybe they’ll start to demand alternatives
Germany's driving test (and school) is fairly strict and will fail you for small mistakes which is good for beginners but after all, there is no test or reinsurance after some years of driving. After some time, people will see driving as a right not a privilege. This is the case for the vast majority of counties. This is the problem.
Problem is that there's no other alternative for most people. Unless you live in a city, public transportation isn't a valid option. Most people living in most locations (at least in the US) have to have personal vehicles to attend school/work, shop, and socialize.
Once self driving cars become commonly available, driving will no longer be a requirement and I think that driving licenses should be stricter on who's allowed to drive.
The way I see it is fuck em, if you can't safely drive and follow the rules to mimimize risk for everyone around you then pay for a taxi or take the bus. No public transport? Get your ass on a bike. Everytime I go out, even for a short 10 minute drive to the grocery store, 90% of the time I see someone doing something insanely stupid and dangerous but because nothing bad comes of it they don't learn not to do that.
Driving a vehicle should be considered a huge privilege considering how easy it is to kill not just yourself, but others simply by being a dumbass and not taking it seriously enough. People back up without looking, make turns without looking, tons of dumb shit constantly, shit I had someone merge into my lane without even looking when I was right beside them, I had to slam on my brakes to get out of the way and I was only able to do that because there was no one behind me. I honked at them and they just flipped me off. There should also be a forced age limit for being able to drive cause old people are fucking terrible drivers, or at the very least they should have yearly tests past a certain age to ensure they're still capable of driving.
Drive properly and safely or deal with the massive consequences of not being able to get around quickly. Need a license to get to/do your job? Drive safely or get fucked. Absolutely zero sympathy for shitty drivers.
Fuck ALL advertisements. Yes, even "unobtrusive" ones, especially yours. If I want your shit, I will find you. If I appreciate your shit, I'll pay you for your time. If you want to connect, I'm all ears. Otherwise, fuck off capitalists, fuck off advertisers, and fuck off useful idiots who want to waste my finite lifespan in this miserable universe showing me ads.
... what's your content? If you're not comfortable posting it, them what type of media is it? Not to rub it in, but getting your content from you, your fans, or someone who contacts me currently is the only way I will ever get your content, as I ruthlessly block advertising in every aspect of my life.
To be clear, I'm not against self promotion. For example, if you went into a video game forum and posted links to your game, that's not advertising in my view. More importantly, I would probably actually be interested in a new video game by you if I were browsing a video game forum. Hell, if you randomly PM'ed it to me or emailed it, that would be fine too.
I make games and stuff. Let me tell you, it's pretty hard to get noticed on the internet. There comes a point where whatever you're selling will be popular enough in a closed circle that it spreads through word of mouth but before that you need to get an audience. That means some shameless advertising in social media and maybe buying some ad spaces. If you don't get that momentum whatever content you're making might be dead on arrival. A lot of people and companies making ads don't actually like annoying others with them, but it's really hard to get anyone's attention now that there's like a billion new things releasing every day.
That means some shameless advertising in social media and maybe buying some ad spaces.
I'd have no problem if you just spammed my inbox or all of my communities. I'm all for self-promotion or even just promoting stuff you like. I don't get adverts anymore, but there have been so many times where I got a negative impression of something I later found out was cool because it was advertised to me first.
I have no problem with people being annoying in my inbox or trying to promote themselves. What I do have a problem with is the constant stream of undiluted, intrusive bullshit being sold to me since the day I was born. If I saw your game in a web ad that's keeping me from the content I actually wanted to see, I would absolutely not be interested in it; if you or a fan blindly spammed it into my inbox 69 times in a row, I would definitely check it out.
Unfortunately there's a lot of products that most people don't even know exist. Hell I keep finding new tools and wondering why I've been doing things the hard way for so long.
OTOH, fuck all the advertisers who use shady tactics to make sales, and especially fuck all the people who pray on the naivety of others to steal their money. I was just showing a customer an email I got the other day stating her domain hosting was past due and required immediate payment, and she asked how I knew it was a scam. Uh, hello, because ---I--- am hosting your domain and website (and this is exactly why I share this kind of stuff with people, to make them think before they blindly write a check).
Unfortunately there's a lot of products that most people don't even know exist. Hell I keep finding new tools and wondering why I've been doing things the hard way for so long.
For sure. I'm not against promotion in the large, but the constant and intrusive advertisements within other tasks, such as web ads that take up valuable screen real estate, or TV/YouTube commercials that keep me from the programs I want to watch.
Like my username is literally PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S. I have no problem getting PM'ed or emailed stuff. For example, I'm subscribed to a number of mailing lists from sites I ordered from. Guitar Center can send me all the emails they want [1], sell me all the crap they want, because I can opt out at any time, and I have a work email so I can put them aside for later.
[1] To the specific email I gave them, which I do check.
I would argue that if there's a product that nobody knows exist that's not necessarily because we need to allow constant intrusive ads, and more indicative that people don't actually need the product.
I want to say that in any given day, 60% of the ads I see are from big, well known companies who don't need me to see them to know they exist. Shit like Liberty Mutual (I swear I see more of their ads than anyone else and THEY ARE ALREADY MY INSURANCE PROVIDER), Coke, Pepsi, etc. 39.9% of the remaining 40% are advertisements for shit that I just don't care about. I don't care about the newest tech toys. I don't care about the newest car mods, or random shit I can put on my desk, or stupid extra kitchen gadgets. Fully 40% of the ads I see are trying to convince me that I should buy a product that I straight up don't need because the ad looked cool. Why should those ads be allowed to exist? Why should I be constantly bombarded with ads for services that I either already know plenty about or for things that are trying to manufacture a reason for their existence?
Only about 0.5% of the ads I see are actually for things I did know know about and that seem useful to me, or like something I would like. Probably even less than that, I'm drunk rn and estimating.
I keep throwing away ads from Comcast trying to sell me on the virtues of their business internet packages. Guys, I left you because your lame-ass shit was expensive as hell, slow as hell, and you couldn't even be counted on to meet a single appointment in 6 months to bury your damn line you left laying across my yard.
I agree with you, there's a lot of companies that just need to be silenced. You're allowed to send me ONE ad, and you better make it good because I don't ever want to hear from you again.
You really should be directing your angst at the bastards who respond to advertising. If it weren't for them, there would be no advertising at all because it would be completely unfeasible. Nobody would be willing to pay for something that has no return on investment.
Disagree. Ad campaigns are made the way they are because marketing people are abusing how our brain works naturally. Some people have managed to build defenses for it, but most people simply lack the ability. That's like blaming people on wheelchair that they can't walk.
Exactly! I can't even stand physical ads like billboards because the concept of reserving land for manipulating every passing person into buying something they don't need is ridiculously perverse to me. Ads are an attack against my psyche and I will do everything I can to avoid them.
When I want to invest in a better product or look for something that solves my wants or needs, I research my options. I will never make my decision based on an obvious ad because they are intrinsically deceitful.
I hate ads as much as the next guy, but without ads get ready to start paying for things. You go to a news website, sorry you need to login and hand over your credit card to access anything. Youtube? Sorry you need to login and pay up to watch anything. You want to Google,Bing, Duckduckgo something sorry you better pay up can't sell you data to advertisers anymore.
Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing but it will fundamentally change how the internet works and it potentially could limit informational access to poor people.
I brought this up the last time I talked about this, but to be clear, if we must choose between advertisements and paywall, then we should chooseadvertisementsas the lesser evil. However, we must never accept the fallacy that advertising or paywalls are theonlypossible choices! More generally, we must never accept the fallacy that a market is the only acceptable way to distribute goods, a corollary of which is the idea that any acceptable solution needs to compete on equal terms with existing products in a market.
Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing but it will fundamentally change how the internet works and it potentially could limit informational access to poor people.
Well the first part at least would be a welcome change. The issue in my view is the very fact that poor people are treated as second-class citizens in information access or any other field of endeavor.
Youtube? Sorry you need to login and pay up to watch anything. You want to Google,Bing, Duckduckgo something sorry you better pay up can't sell you data to advertisers anymore.
I very genuinely want those sites to fucking die so I don't have to coexist in a world where they dominate the internet. I would be literally thrilled to join a group of like-minded people who have to reimplement the conveniences of the modern web from scratch for free.
Are there a nontrivial number of people who genuinely enjoy ads?
Maybe? My parents are boomers and they watch cable TV with ads. I've told them a few dozen times that they don't need to watch them, that they could mute them or watch elsewhere, but they don't care. My grandmother also watches the ads when she watches TV. Oh well...
How do you reach people with a new product that didn't exist before? Or a Service? Do you want monopolys that never change because smaller business cant advertise with their stuff.
I don't like 99% of advertising either, especially online, but there are some exceptions.
How do you reach people with a new product that didn't exist before? Or a Service?
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. No one remembers the former generations, and even those yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow them.
—Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, New International Version
EDIT: I'm not a Christian and I'm not trying to convert anyone to my faith (or lack thereof), I just think it's a neat quote.
My point really is that you can generally talk about your products in some existing forum with reference to existing things. For example, if I wanted people to listen to my music, which I have deluded myself into thinking is a unique, previously unheard-of blend of genres, I would post links onto music forums and groups who are interested in recommendations of music adjacent to the type I produce. And that is how I actually spread my music on Reddit (although not as PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S) back when it was fresh. No ads, no wasting people's time and internet. I only reached people who already expressed their interest to receive music like mine. I got a very small following, but I achieved my goal.
Nothing is so unique that it belongs in no forum or is of interest to no existing community, yet simultaneously needs to be broadcast to the entire world. I have no problem with people sending me stuff they believe in to my email or other inbox, blow it up for all I care, but what I do take issue with is shoving that stuff into my web browsing experience or even sandwiched into the content I'm trying to watch.
Clearly an advancement from simple electromagnetism, which was the unification of the previous studies of electricity and magnetism. Not fully original.
Genetic engineering
Based on prior analysis of genetics, which itself descended from simple breeding, and chemistry. Not fully original.
Quantum computing
Hybrid of computing with quantum principles. Not fully original.
Like I get it, we do discover new stuff and create new techniques, but (1) these physics still existed before we discovered them and (2) (much more importantly) these things are not new in the sense that they're not totally unique, that we can compare them to things that exist because they are inspired by things that already exist.
I mulled over whether or not to quote the Bible directly once I figured out where that quote came from, and I ultimately decided to do so because of the Bible's reputation for needing to be "read into". I think that particular passage says something really interesting about how, in some sense, nothing really new happens, that what we're doing can be seen as a version of something else. This is particularly interesting as a piece of a Christian document; Christianity generally doesn't posit a cyclical view of the world. You live, you die, you go into the afterlife, judgement day happens, and God's chosen few spend eternity in heaven; e.g., the plot is linear. Therefore, there clearly must be some deeper context to the text.
Regardless, it was a minor part of my original argument. The rest should stand on its own.
Also, I went to Catholic school. I'd like to use my religion classes for something; I'm most certainly not using them for praying 😂
Ok so I suppose you'll be using raw electromagnetism instead of anything that uses advanced electronics? Just because something has a history doesn't mean it's not new, and even if that were the case, just because something's not new that doesn't mean it's not a useful improvement.
What I meant in the original argument is that nothing can be so new and original that we cannot talk about it without referencing previous concepts and those forums. For example, results in advanced electronics were initially presented in early electrical engineering theses presented to engineers and physicists interested in electrical [1] phenomena.
We would not need to show advertisements to promote advanced electronics. There are already forums of people interested in electrical engineering. We can promote advanced electronics to our heart's content in those forums.
Ok so I suppose you'll be using raw electromagnetism instead of anything that uses advanced electronics?
So this is a bit of a non-sequitur, but at some point in a complex design I might actually have to go back to "raw electromagnetism", e.g. numerically solving Poisson's equation or Maxwell's equations for crucial parts of the circuit, depending on how small things are. What you learn in a typical electronics class is a behavioral approximation that's good for describing the general expected behavior of a circuit, but not always precise enough to finish a design.
[1] Loosely, an electrical device is any device that uses electricity. An electronic device is a device that does "something" "smart". For example, an amplifier is an electronic device as is a digital timer, whereas a light bulb is electrical but not electronic. Modern "Electrical engineering" is more precisely "Electronics engineering".
Even though he is a socialist (which I hate) I believe he genuinely cares about the issues he says he cares about, unlike almost everyone in politics right now, Bernie is honest. Donald Trump, well he gets shit done and is politically incorrect, he has the courage to say things that many politicians don't have the courage of addressing (a similarity between both Bernie and Trump). And Bernie has not changed that much on terms of his policies, he supported gay men and women when it was unpopular (I loved this big time!), he says what he thinks about the Saudis and no one,not even trump has the courage to do this, he is a brave man in the truest sense. I love Bernie more than Trump for that reason. But yeah, both are populists, both are unlike anyone who I have ever seen, I really wish Bernie was president for at least one term, Hillary B Clinton and the Dems cheated him out of his rightful ticket. So fuck Hillary and fuck the democratic party establishment, also fuck Joe Biden too while we are at it. For someone who make a big deal out of the Jan 6 disturbance, Dems are perfectly capable of and are willing to steal elections and throw the will of the people into the dustbin.
Not unless you’re a complete fucking shitlib moron that will uncritically swallow whole any anti-Muslim genocide-pushing, imperialist, global death cult capitalist bullshit that CNN or MSNBC feeds you.
if porn is banned then there's no regulation for it, meaning when people inevitably set up illegal porn sites things like child porn and abuse are not off the table and will be much easier to find than right now. unless of course you want to implement mass survailance to make sure nobody's watching, which is a violation of our human right to privacy.
It's like that for many vices such as alcohol- it's harmful but banning it is much worse than regulating it (see the history of 1920s America). I'm not convinced porn consumption is harmful but even if it was, it shouldn't be banned.
My siblings in Christ just because you have an unhealthy relationship with porn doesn't mean that everyone else does too. Stop projecting your problems into pathologizing everyone else.
Not all migrants are good for the country. Many come with views incompatble with western culture. Stuff like homophobia, transohobia, mysogyny. And they are often brought over as cheap labor, undercutting local labor.
The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right. We should be able to carry on all public lands, and other places open to the public.
It is hilarious that that timidly suggests that it might be possible that 100% of people brought into the US from wildly incompatible cultures might be an issue is considered so unpopular it's being downvoted in an unpopular opinion thread.
What are you talking about, a ton of people do. "No human is illegal " is an overused, shitty slogan that is constantly everywhere, even though it doesn't nake sense.
Those are two different things. One is acknowledging uncontrolled inmigration is a negative thing for a country. The other one is not giving a shit because it's more important to help people fleeing life threatening situations, even at the expense of one's own privileged quality of life. At this point it's important to note that rich countries' quality of life is only made possible by unfair distribution of planetary resources and human exploitation of the same people being denied entry.
Fair enough. 100% convinced no bs. Work in Healthcare and have had bad experiences with big bitch nurses. Should not allow that to taint view of all the genuine big bitches out there.
No better than a racist doing that.
Had a rude obese nurse get up from a chair and her FUPA was exposed. Would this be similar to if someone flashed their dick to a coworker?
I have a similar one for our country - we were occupied by Soviets and to this day I fucking hate that the communist party wasn't outlawed after revolution. They tortured people for fuck's sake. And the even sadder part is that it took 30 years after revolution for the communist party to not have any presence in the parliament - the last elections were the first where they didn't gain any seat.
Cool. I used to live in Brno (although I am Norwegian). I had a coworker from Praha who used to curse commies on a daily basis when we worked offshore together. "What kind of asshole party man designed this commie piece of shit??!". He grew up in the 80's.
Heh, lived there as well for a while! Yep, commie hatred is huge here. Especially because they fucked up so much for us. Throughout centuries we were part of the west, one of the most innovative countries in the world and one of the richest! Then decades of occupation by those fuckers (the previous occupation by Nazi Germany didn't help as well, thank you all the countries who sold us over because that would definitely stop Hitler from going further!) and suddenly everyone calls us eastern, we're far from our former prosperity and have basically become a factory for Germany. I'm a little salty about that.
Mate, you're looking for approval from westerners by kicking down east. You internalized the whole racial hierarchy some imperial fucks invented with them on top, and you're trying to climb it.
It's not a made up hierarchy and I didn't internalize anything - I agree with the hierarchy! Soviets were in the wrong, they illegally occupied many, many countries. If we disagree on this simple fact, we have nothing further to discuss. If we agree, then there is a logical conclusion: everyone, who supported them was in the wrong as well.
And as much as I hate to admit it, they would've never been so successful here if we didn't welcome them. I think it's kinda understandable - we were torn by war and our western allies has fucked us over to save their asses (which they didn't in the end and honestly that, for me, is the only good thing about the war) and suddenly a big Slavic country comes and says they will help us, unlike those big bad guys that fucked us. While I personally would be looking for the catch were I alive back then, I understand that people just wanted peace.
Anyway, that was kinda detour, the fact remains that we welcomed them, so we we're correctly labeled as the "eastern bloc" for that. What pisses me off about it is that we were part of the western culture with western values for centuries, while we were part of the eastern bloc for measly 23 years (and most of the time it was involuntary when people found out that there indeed was a catch with the "brotherly help").
We were fucked by west and then fucked by east, truly a wonderful country to live in.
"We should have systemically hunted down and killed every member of a political party" is unpopular, not because of the sentiment, but because actually doing so generally goes against the foundational beliefs of most modern societies.
Then comes the question who was a nazi? And who just feard them and not spoke up? Look at Russia or China, propaganda is also very much a problem, would you kill a 19 year old because he was in SS after all his life he was told thats a good thing?
I agree that Nazis are absolute garbage, but you can't justify a genocide with a genocide, same with Japan after WW2 (and they did worse stuff)
Also, whats with the "Commies" from USSR? They where basically the same level of evil. (and yes the Holodomor was a genocide and not the only thing they did)
Well, killing all Nazis isn't genocide, it's just mass murder.
And it isn't about a scale of how bad various regimes have been before or since.
And yes, that's the entire thing. They should have killed every last SS, Gestapo, every brown shirt and soldier, no matter how young. The motivation of the victims of killing every nazi wouldn't matter because the point is to eradicate every last one of them, and there's no way to prove they didn't believe in what they were doing other than their actions. There weren't very many Schindlers that showed by their actions that they actively resisted from the inside. And if it took their deaths to achieve the goal, then it was a mistake to not do it then.
TBH, despite being against the death penalty for several reasons, I'm worried we might be faced with such a decision again in my lifetime because they didn't do it then.
Obviously, eradicating the nazis wouldn't prevent the kind of insanity and hatred that exists as part of the human mind. It would have changed the face of that hatred though, and it would have sent the message that some things will not be forgiven or forgotten. It would have meant less rallying points, less bullshit. And it would have set the precedent that if humans behave like that, they can be put down like a rabid animal to protect the rest of us.
Again, I'm aware of exactly how ugly this opinion is. I do not like looking at the world and thinking that there wasn't enough death done back then. I do not like looking at the world now and wondering when it is going to happen again. But it's an ugly fucking world, and they're coming back. They're coming back exactly the same way they did before because they were allowed to survive.
At the end of the war literal children were being drafted. Are you seriously arguing that we should kill a 13 year old because he got a threatening letter and followed it's instructions?
Ahh, I'm not arguing we, as in humanity today, should do anything yet.
I'm saying that the people alive and in charge at the time made a mistake in not wiping out every nazi they could find.
Age is no barrier to such things at all. A 13 year old can be tried as an adult in many places for extreme crimes. Child soldiers have been sent to war for millennia, and still are today. Children are quite capable of committing atrocities. I wouldn't want to do it, I wouldn't want to see it get that far. But it was a mistake not to go as far as necessary to eradicate anyone that served the nazis because there's absolutely no way other than actions to prove what the individuals believed, and even that has flaws.
How many children had already been killed? I'm not even talking about by the nazis. Look up the Dresden fire bombing. Plenty of children were burnt to ash there. Hiroshima, Nagasaki. The are just the famous ones. The allies had already killed children of all ages by the end of the war. Pretending that there's a moral difference between that and executing them is not useful. Executions would even be arguably less horrible since it would only target those that were in the armed forces.
Well, this discussion has been less contentious than in the past, so I've actually had a chance to cover this.
Before I go copy/pasting things already covered, would it be too much to ask that you give a quick scroll through the thread and see if any of that changes your question, or if there's follow ups that you might have? It would help streamline the thread overall if there's not a lot of repeats.
I read the whole thread and didn’t see a single argument about what good would have come from that. I think you’re looking at this from a very removed point of view that lets you forget the actual individuals involved. I’m German. Let me introduce you to my grandparents and let’s see how they would’ve fared under your proposed processing:
Grandpa A was drafted at the end of the war, he was 13. He didn’t want to be there and plotted a “genius” plan with his two buddies two lie to his general about a super important mission from the general next town and run off. He probably only survived that because his general wasn’t in the mood to shoot him on the spot.
Grandma B wasn’t drafted obviously, she worked in (basically) social services while WWII because she actually was a supporter of the Nazi party and felt like that’s how she could do her part. She didn’t commit any atrocities, probably simply because as a woman she never got anywhere close to the front.
Grandpa C was a party member. He didn’t want to join at first – we still own a news paper page where he (and a few others) were openly shamed for refusing to join party and front. After his brother, who had turned down an SS position, was transferred to an extra risky combat unit as cannon fodder and died on his second day, he caved. I can only assume that, as a soldier, he actively participated in the fighting. He tried to disobey where easily possible, but he didn’t desert. When his general told him to “take care” of a woman he abused, he brought her away from the front, pointed her to the nearest town and told her to flee.
Grandma D didn’t do any of that, but she was proudly engaged to a Hitler Youth leader (who thankfully died, so she met my grandpa after the war). While WWII she absolutely was a Nazi, but she didn’t actively do anything that would mark her as such. She got into a personal crisis after the war when she stopped lying to herself about this horrible system she had supported. Until the day she died she was convinced she would go to hell.
Killing every active supporter, as you suggested, would have both my grandpas executed, although they both condemned what was happening and, limited by their sparce abilities to do so, tried to disobey. My grandmas would’ve ironically been spared, even though they were (when it comes to their attitude) more Nazis than my grandpas. Neither of the four were Nazis at later points in their life, I’d like to add. And the generation after them would have never existed - an anti-nationalistic, anti-patriotic, highly political, highly critical and socially active family, influenced by traumatized men and rueful women.
So it would have achieved nothing. I'd argue the world would be even worse if that would have been humanity's answer to WWII back then.
I think you are kinda insane, at the wars end most German soldiers where literally underage, there is no justice in killing them, not the smallest bit.
My unpopular opinion is that too many people give way, waaaaaayyy too much attention to "correct use of gender pronouns" and they should all just stfu.
I understand why that is a big deal for trans people, because they make their gender the defining aspect of their character. Something I consider a mistake, nobody's main defining characteristic should be their gender.
I'm sure some people have made the mistake you are describing, but I doubt it's only trans people who have made this mistake.
As a trans person, I would like to make my gender an aspect of my character, like most people get to do. I am more than just my gender, but my gender is a part of who I am.
It does feel good to be validated about my gender, but I'm not worried about people getting my pronouns wrong. I know it can be confusing and people don't mean anything by it if they make a mistake. It's hard to describe the intensity of the joy I felt once, when I was validated about my gender by another person. So, I will say it doesn't surprise me if some people decide to express their gender a lot once they are finally able to.
We can add the people who have their sexuality as their only character trait and need everyone to know.
I don't need to know that you are lgbtqi+. If you want to tell me that you have a partner and they happen to be the same gender or such then good on you for finding someone to love. Fucking amazing how the world works and you went against the odds and all that.
However.
I don't need you to remind me that you are pan every 15 minutes.
make their gender the defining aspect of their character
The vast majority of cishet people (if not all) make their gender the defining aspect of their character - so why should trans people be any different?
…is what you really want you need to start with cis people and not transgender ones, correct?
Dunno about you, but nobody I deal with in RL ever implied something among the lines of "refer to me as ". There was only one case of an ex-boss of mine who always liked to "joke": "you can mistake my name, but never mistake my gender!", but he was the exception
I have quite a few. I don't believe in copyright laws or IP in general. I think it holds back innovation and exists solely to benefit megacorps like Disney or pharmaceutical companies.
For example - you develop a new drug that really helps some people. You charge $50 a pill even though it costs you $5 to produce. Without the government protecting IP, another company will come around and produce it and sell it for $6 a pill, providing cheaper access to healthcare.
People will say "what would give someone the incentive to make new things?" Without actually thinking it through. For a great example of how lack of IP is a good thing, look at how Shenzhen went from a fishing village to a Chinese San Francisco in a few short decades.. one company will take the product of another and iterate on top of it.
Another unpopular opinion is I'm pretty absolutist with free speech. I think certain things like calls to violence or intentional defamation of character should be restricted. But pretty much everything else should be fair game.
I believe in open borders and think the US should return to the late 1800s style of immigration. We're gonna need the population to compete with China in the coming century.
I also think that the primary investment into climate change at this point should be preparing for the inevitable changes instead of trying to prevent the inevitable.
Developing new drugs costs millions and can lasts decades, especially because of clinical trials. Without IP protection, the company making the effort to find new drugs would go bankrupt (the price of newly found drugs must also pay for other drug research that did not succeed). I don't know how it works in the USA, in France the system is that that the IP protection lasts 10 years after releasing the drug on the market, then other companies can copy it. And during this 10 years period, the price is regulated by the government.
I disagree with the climate change thing. There will be inevitable damage, which we should prepare for, but if we don’t try and stop it, even if it is past the 1.5 or more degrees, it will just get worse and worse, until it exhausts our repairs and kills us for good. If we dont stop it even if late, it will spiral out of control.
In an ideal world we would be able to control climate change. The problem is that we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world defined by economics and war. Energy is the heart of everything- without energy you don't have a modern economy.
Look what happened in Germany right after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Germany was getting most of its natural gas from Russia through pipelines. During the course of the war, those natural gas imports fell of a cliff for various reasons. What did Germany do to compensate? They burned coal. Coal outputs much higher carbon emissions than natural gas. Not only in the burning itself, but in the mining process required to get the coal.
So what was the response of the German society under pressure? Put out more carbon emissions. Just a glance at the global geopolitical situation would tell you that crisis isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
I think this is fundamentally the issue. As long as we live in a world with crisis, governments will never let go of quick cheap and reliable energy. When the economy is in trouble, there aren't going to be any politicians advocating for things that could potentially cost the economy. And to get rid of our carbon emissions - we need to feel some pain.
In order to meaningfully prevent climate change, we would need to do something yesterday. Instead, we probably won't be doing anything for the next couple of decades.
Of course, I must end this with a caveat that my comment was made to be a little controversial. I don't believe all attempts to reduce carbon emissions are a bad idea. To the contrary, I believe we should absolutely enact these changes. I'm just expressing a sort of cynical sentiment that since we can't really stop it, we might as well start spending money on dealing with it
the world is overpopulated and everyone who wants to have children should require a license to do so (and it should cost a lot - like, a mid-tier job's annual salary).
This would only deter people who would otherwise plan a child. Those people tend to have fewer children in the first place and are more likely to take good care of them. I actually think the best approach to reducing the world's population increase is a heavy investment in education including reproductive education, especially in poorer countries which are the ones still actually growing fast.
I, as someone in a third world country, absolutely hate US foreign policy. Fuck you, we almost had a democracy for a minute. We didn’t need your highways either.
But you can’t blame these actions in the people of the US, as nor the army nor the FBI, CIA, and the other three letters are democratic.