Not cooperating with oversight investigators should be a fireable offence. Just straight up your job has a higher standard of conduct. If you want your right to not talk that’s fine but you can do that as a civilian not a police officer.
It’s long past time to force officers to be held accountable.
While that’s true most people are unaware of the places actual role. In the United States at least in the police are not there to protect or serve you. They are there to protect the property of the wealthy. And not much else. They can and will kill you with impunity if afforded the chance. We need to completely reform the police. Because the problems with them stem far far deeper than their simple gang behavior. And that is a sad truth. The police are off the little more than a state or municipality in sanctioned gang.
While you are referencing American police behavior in a forum about Canada, I don’t think our police are much better. We could definitely take a page from some other countries about what responsibilities and obligations police have, or ought to have.
I should probably thank Netflix for helping me save money. Their shenanigans pissed me off enough that I’ve entirely withdrawn from all paid streaming - I have a media server and a VPN now. Total media cost, $70 /year or ~$5.83 /month. For that, I have:
Access to any movie or t.v. show any streaming service has ever provided
No ads
Shows/films don’t get removed from from the platform without warning.
Look up Plex. And then look up Plexshares. Unfortunately the subreddit is private at the moment so I'm not sure where else to look but I am a part of one and I pay 18AUD, have access to all the latest movies Anne TV shows that are on streaming or have been on streams.
Right there with you! Though I must be honest, I spent a lot more time and energy on automating the thing than I expected. Now that it's up and running, it's bulletproof and very low touch. I'm now permanently out of the streaming ecosystem. Which is really testament to how badly these companies screwed up. I still subscribe to Spotify because I get access to everything for a fair price. Visual media streaming could have been the same thing, but no. They created 10 different competing services, constantly switching where content could be located. All the apps are different and many suck. They're full of DRM so I struggle to watch them on planes or car trips, depending on the service. They gave us a terrible experience and continue to jack up the prices. I'm out.
Yes, Plex, and a super cheap Intel G5400 plus some disks running Unraid. Very low energy so I can keep it running 24x7. It also supports QuickSync, so can transcode x265 content easily without a GPU.
My two favourite pieces of software in the world are Sonarr and Radarr. And they're free! They'll automate everything for you. Then you just tell them which movies and shows you want and they'll do all the heavy lifting for you.
I've got them set up with some public trackers, but I also pay for a cheap Usenet subscription ($3/m). Between these I grab almost everything I want.
A couple of people have asked for more info about my setup, so here’s what I did. I’m on mobile, so forgive any typos:
I bought a refurbished Dell mini PC from some website or other - if you Google “refurbished Dell mini PC” it’ll probably be the top result. It doesn’t need to be fast or have too much memory, but I’ve got a 2TB hard disk in mine, which is surprisingly cheap. Also needs at least one HDMI port.
I installed Ubuntu 20.04, and made a single user with no password, then set it to boot straight to the desktop. Plugged it directly into the t.v. with an HDMI cable.
I bought a cheap wireless keyboard with a roller ball in it that (barely, need a better one) can be used from my couch.
Installed Jellyfin and set it to run as a background service on boot. It has two directories it cares about: ~/Videos/Film and ~/Videos/Television
Set up ssh so that I can use scp to push files from my personal laptop to the server without having to dick around with thumb drives etc. I also have a script that checks how much disk space is available on the media server so I don’t run out (that 2TB drive fills up fast).
Got a NordVPN subscription and use Transmission on my personal laptop to download anything I want to see, push it to the server.
For a while, I also had an external domain name and IP so I could watch my videos on my phone while travelling, but I switched routers recently and something broke. I haven’t set this back up, but there are services that will give you a static IP and route requests to your actual IP so you can have a static domain name without having to pay your ISP for a static IP.
EDIT: also, you can set commands to run at login, so it boots directly to Firefox running in kiosk mode on the Jellyfin web app. The end result is that on boot, I get the Ubuntu symbol, a brief flash of desktop, and then I’m browsing my media library full screen.
Ya anyone with an ounce of brain cells predicted that theft would be an issue with self-checkputs but stores were blindsided by the savings they saw with getting rid of cashiers.
Also sometimes the machines a super finicky. It hasn’t happened very recently for me, but the amount of times you need an employee to reset the machine or enter a code is too damn high.
Always making a big deal out of theft for pennies or dollars from individual customers … but seldom highlighting the theft of thousands and millions by corporate heads at the top
I've seen some pretty callous attitudes towards the victims based on the fact that they were wealthy. And while there is plenty to be said about the ethics of hoarding money, I would almost never advocate for the death of another regardless of their crimes.
Stockton Rush was the truly reckless person here, and there is certainly humor to be found in his disregard for safety bringing about his own demise. Especially considering how much it seems to echo the story of the mass grave he built the Titan to visit. He swindled people into taking a ride on his budget deep-submergence vehicle. If anyone "got what they were asking for", it was him.
Who I feel bad for are the friends and families of the victims. Rush and everyone else never even had time to process the fact that something was wrong before getting compressed down to the size of a tin can. But their spouses, children, friends, and relatives didn't make the decision to take this risk. They woke up Monday to learn that their loved one went missing, and learned of their death on Thursday. No amount of money in your bank account really changes the math here, this is a truly horrifying ongoing experience for them just as much as it would be for you or me.
None of this will stop me from enjoying some good old fashioned gallows humor. There has certainly been a lot of amusement to be had dissecting Rush's recklessness, his scary comments about regulations impeding innovation, and the questionable design of the Titan. But I choose to leave his victims out of it.
I don't have much sympathy for the father who took his 19yo son down with him. Fine to risk your own life, but what kind of minimal research did he do before putting his kid at risk? I'd be furious if my brother did that to his son.
The thing is Rush was by all accounts a smart guy and not a swindler. Obviously, he really believed his thing was safe, what with being on it and all. I suspect this will be a case of an elite expert that thinks knowing his field in and out means he knows everything. I usually call it “Ben Carson syndrome”, haha.
But the thing is, he wasn't a smart guy and was a swindler.
His background is in aeronautics, not marine engineering, so he was trying to apply knowledge meant for 0-1 atm of pressure to engineering a vessel to withstand 400 atm of pressure.
Just like everyone in the submersible world is coming out of the woodwork saying they all knew about his designs and told him not to do it, he was also known in the oceanography world (my field of research) - he (or others from oceangate) would show up at the conferences and be on the tech expo floors, especially in his early years, and try to convince us all that we should be using his subs to do our research. He wasn't pitching for us to do anything new or innovative with our research, just that he could attach our tech to his sub and go out there with it instead of towing it behind a boat, taking measurements remotely, using an ROV/AUV, etc. A) we already have tried and true methods of collecting or data, and in order to publish our data it needs to be reproducible in order to be peer reviewed, so why would we collect data with a method that would be best impossible for anyone else to do, B) why would we go through that risk of an untested method when the method isn't our research, C) there wasn't a chance that our research grants would cover the cost, D) there wasn't a chance that our research institutions would insure us or our research for it. He really wanted to be part of the research world to show this was an important part of research and prove the legitimacy of his creation, but he was barking up the wrong tree. He was coming to those of us that were doing acoustic data collection of the seafloor and saying we could be in the sub while the data is being recorded - but there's no benefit to that, or teams that take measurements that are taken regularly over a period of time which would require multiple deployments instead of planning a sensor that is checked remotely regularly. He really tried selling it hard though. Maybe if he went to the animal behaviorists that always say "I wish I could just see when they do ______" whatever behavior it is that has never been seen by humans because it's underwater and too far to dive - but chances are the appearance of a strange bubbling metal vessel with a light will scare it off.... This is what ROVs are for.
Anyway, since he couldn't get anywhere with the research angle, he started hawking it to his rich acquaintances and friends of friends. He still claimed to them that the overall goal was to have it be used as a research tool, so I don't know if the Titanic dives were a means to an end or a detour that would continue, but either way, he knew he had these acquaintances that had the will and the means to pay massive amounts of money for limited access adventure experiences and exploited the Titanic.
I feel like you didn’t contradict me there. His field was aerospace engineering, and he seemed to think being good at it made him a submarine expert, too.\
Edit: He never designed planes professionally, it seems, he only did various adjacent jobs.
Doesn't that make him not a smart guy? If he's not willing to listen to the people who are experts in the field he's trying to transition into and instead think that his knowledge of a completely different field not only makes him an expert in it, but able to completely "change the game"
That’s a matter of semantics. I’d say it doesn’t nullify being an aerospace golden boy, and it’s actually really common among specialists, especially engineers for whatever reason, so yeah he was still smart. Just maybe not wise.
Nobody is questioning his aeronautics skills - he may have done well, he may not have. Considering he didn't go into that field and choose to do adventure tourism in space or research in space, I'm betting he couldn't hack it in that field either. But we don't have anything to go on because he chose not to showcase those skills.
What he did choose to showcase was his ability to translate those skills to the ocean environment - which he failed at, significantly (ie, not smart). And when experts in the field offered their sincere advice, he showed arrogance, a classic sign of "not smart". His own team tried to recommend different tests and different materials and he fired them instead of listening to them, not smart.
He had every opportunity to make smart decisions. People who are specialists and are very smart definitely work on projects in other fields, but they know they are specialists and know when they've hit their limit of translating their skill set and when to take the advice of others. Yes, there is a difference between smart and wise, but this guy was not smart.
Considering he didn’t go into that field and choose to do adventure tourism in space or research in space, I’m betting he couldn’t hack it in that field either.
Hmm, I remembered it slightly wrong. He had a career as a pilot and flight-test engineer, and set records for being certified on certain planes the earliest of anyone, but it looks like you’re right, he wasn’t ever a design engineer. He went into the business end of aeronautics after that.
The submarine thing came out of a midlife crisis, which is another disturbing part of it.
I’m not going to bother arguing over the definition of “smart”. Natural language is fundamentally imprecise. How about we just agree that he made bad decisions and call it a day?
I assume you mention this because of the atrocities the Nazi Party committed, notably towards the Jewish population?
And you are surprised that members of the Liberal and Conservative Parties, which committed much the same atrocities, notably towards the Indigenous population, would stand up in support of such atrocities?
Why wouldn’t they? Especially when they have been feeling the heat lately for what the parties did and fear that Canada will start to atone for its mistakes like Germany did, which will leave them out in the cold. Getting you to wear an orange shirt is a short-term distraction, but that only gets them so far before people start asking questions again. They cannot rest on that.
Ridiculous how some are trying to obfuscate the man’s involvement with Nazism. He joined a Nazi organisation, he’s a Nazi. Nazis are bad and should not be allowed to escape justice. Call a pig a pig.
You realize that we are right now living in the timeline where we didn't kill all those Nazis. We know, for an absolute fact, what would happen if we didn't "wipe that fascist mob out of existence." We got modern-day Germany as a result.
And you're still of the opinion that they should have been massacred instead? You think that would have resulted in a better outcome than what we have in the real world today?
I'm not making a pro-Nazi point. I'm making an anti-oversimplification point. The eastern front of World War II was a huge mess, you can't neatly divide it up between "good guys" and "bad guys."
Which is not saying that Nazis were good guys, obviously. That's the whole point. There weren't clear-cut "good guys." There were terrible people and awful people and people being forced to choose between those or die.
I have asked people who accuse me of that to point to any actual comment I've made where I've said anything at all that was nice about the Nazis. So far nobody has responded to any of those questions.
Can you point to where I'm defending Nazis? I'm all over this thread saying "it's entirely possible that both sides were really awful and people were forced to choose between those two bad choices." That's hardly a defence of Nazis or Naziism. Quite the opposite.
One of the other responses someone made to my comment suggested that most of those 8.5 million Nazis should have been killed. The utter lack of perspective and nuance, not to mention the irony, is astounding. We happen to actually live in a timeline where those people weren't killed and we know for a fact that everything went fine. So maybe those people weren't all raving monsters after all, and applying a pure black-and-white nuance-free filter to the world leads to bad decisions.
If you commit war crimes, then you go to jail. You have, you know, a trial. C’mon this has been sorted out a long time ago but you’re acting like gosh darn how can this ever be solved.
After reading more of this thread, you are either portraying your position absofuckinglutely terribly, or you are a Nazi apologist but when countered you meekly agree and say “that’s my point”. Nowhere do you actually make “your point”, only when you’re cornered.
The point I've been trying to make throughout this thread is that both the Nazis and the Soviets were terrible to the people of Eastern Europe, so the people on the ground were faced with a choice between two monsters. The fact that some of them chose the wrong side does not automatically make them bad people. That is also the point of the article OP posted.
The problem is that there are a lot of people who see the situation in absolutely black and white terms. There has to be a "good guy" and a "bad guy", and those who side with the "good guy" are good and those who side with the "bad guy" are bad. Since one of the sides here is Hitler, then obviously that means whoever was fighting against him must be the "good guys". It's not as simple as that. But of course, now that I've gone and said that, bam I go off into the "bad guy" category as far as those people are concerned.
I'd really like to see these comments where I'm supposedly being a Nazi apologist or a Nazi sympathizer. I'm pretty sure I've not said a single good thing about them, at least not as an ideology (I did object to the notion of jailing literally every member of the Nazi party after the war, which with the hindsight of history I think seems to have worked out okay. And you seem to agree with that with your "have a trial" point).
The Nazis were terrible. The Soviets were also terrible. And the people caught in between them at the time often had to choose one of those sides, without that hindsight of history to tell them which one would end up being the victors.
I’m not reading all that after reading through your other comments, but I did catch the what-what-whaaboutism. JFC back to what I said, have a trial. And you’re back to absofuckinglutely terribly or Nazi apologist. I know which I’ve decided. Now go away.
That's not how whataboutism works. Whataboutism is an attempt to excuse bad behaviour by pointing out that the "other side" does it too. I'm saying that both sides are bad. It's literally the opposite of whataboutism.
Solid response but you won’t get much upvotes here because people have made up their minds long time ago. New information won’t dissuade them because they’re already committed to lighting their torches and sharpening their pitchforks.
Historians say this is complex but all the non-experts are making this so black and white it’s hard to believe.
Thanks. Yeah, even when you discount the higher Tankie proportion on many Lemmy instances I find this is a common situation in general. The simple-minded "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing means if I say bad things about Stalin I must be supporting Hitler. Despite the fact that I've also said plenty of bad things about Hitler and nothing good about him.
Ah well. I've never been in this for the Karma, after all.
Oh, and don’t forget being called Holocaust Denier or something equally vapid and untrue. Who the fuck is denying that? Literally, no one but here they are because that’s the Russian strategy, accuse, accuse accuse and never let up.
Imagine falling for Kremlin propaganda and not even knowing it? These people are morons for believing the Russian government considering it’s well established that they’ve committed war crimes in Ukraine. First rule of propaganda, blame others for what you’re doing. Fox News and the GOP do it all the time and their supporters can’t see the forest from the trees cause they’re just too simple-minded to understand.
Yes, I’m sure there were some people that got caught between Waffen-SS and the Soviets and suffered because of that. This guy was not one of them. He was in Waffen-SS.
I've only been speaking in generalities, I don't know the specifics of Hunka's case in particular.
People did get conscripted into the Waffen-SS. Apparently not Hunka, based on other comments, but simply "being in the Waffen-SS" doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Waffen-SS means open weapon carry nazi secret police. After the Nazi secret police got aggressive enough to start open carrying because they had outgrown the need for secrecy thanks to all the nazi sympathizers that bolstered them.
There is of course nuance in party membership. Ur examples are of course Schindler and Albert Goering. My aunt’s father was actually conscripted into the military at 14 during the dying days of the reich.
But we’re talking here about a dude who joined up with a nazi military division of his own free will when the war was in full healthy swing - a division that explicitly fought against his own people. He chose to join the invading forces. Fuck 'im.
The Waffen-SS and its entry requirements changed a lot over time. Initially it was very exclusive, yes. But by the end of the war it was 900,000 strong and people were being conscripted into it against their will. The Nuremberg Trials explicitly recognized that simply being in the Waffen-SS should not be considered a sign of any sort of guilt.
This specific person that is causing all this kerfuffle, I know nothing about. But simply stating "the dude was Waffen-SS" doesn't tell us anything.
As I said, I don't know the specifics about this particular individual. If you do know them then maybe use those instead of the broad and inaccurate brush of "the dude was Waffen-SS." That's all I was objecting to.
That is not only very much an elective organization, you have to really want it.
In the early days, but as the war dragged on that started to change. Approximately 1/3 of Waffen-SS members were conscripts by 1942. Hunka joined in 1943. As a volunteer, though, so…
"Taking this vaccine offends my conscience. I ought to have the choice about what goes into my body, and a lifesaving treatment cannot be denied to me because I chose not to take an experimental treatment for a condition"
Hun, you're not the only person who is looking for a transplant. If you're not going to protect yourself from COVID-19, you don't get the organ. Plain and simple.
Yup. The courts have long held that being vaccinated can be a requirement of getting an organ transplant. Organs are hard to come by and they should go to the people who are going to listen to their doctor and do what needs to be done to keep that organ alive for a long time. If not, it should go to someone who will.
I put on the mask months before it was required because it was the right thing to do. I kept wearing the mask for months after they were required because it was the right thing to do.
You put on the mask when you were told to and took it off when you were told you could.
You call me sheeple? Give your fucking head a shake. You anti-reality cultists think with one brain and it isn’t yours.
I'm not sure whether I take more offense to people still calling the vaccine experimental or thinking it's a treatment. Being so desperately against something without bothering to even pretend to understand what it is or why irks the shit out of me. Good riddance.
THIS is the key point. She had made this her entire identity. When billions of doses had been administered to billions of people worldwide and none of them became magnetic, or sterile, or had tracking chips installed, or got 5G, or turned into monkeys and the world went on with life while she slowly killed herself while wailing about the injustice…she would rather die than admit that she was wrong.
It's worse than just being stubborn though. Being wrong and not willing to admit it is petty, but people are willing to go much further (up to dying, apparently) if they're too willfully ignorant to even be open to the possibility they could be wrong. This is some dark ages shit, and it's terrifying how much of it's out there in the wild.
For an "experimental vaccine" it's had a pretty amazing job at limiting the severity of covid and reducing deaths. If only all experiments were that successful
I am a proponent of MAID, but I find it extremely disturbing that we’re opening up MAID to conditions that aren’t even covered under our social health system. We are openly saying that we consider mental health issues too expensive to treat and would prefer that people with these conditions just die already. Social supports for people with disabilities and expanding health care to include mental health coverage should absolutely be part of this, or we’re just being murderous ghouls as a society.
I agree in principle, but that's not what's happening in the real world.
My husband has ME/CFS. It's a life-destroying disease, even though it doesn't usually kill you. There's no treatment, no cure, and no idea about the underlying cause, after many decades of research.
It's heartbreaking to read messages from people who caught it as a teen, seen all their schoolfriend grow up, experience life, find love etc, all while the sufferer is in pain all day, no hope of improving, relying heavily on what family they have who are willing to support.
This is by no means ideal, but neither is decades of suffering. I err on the side of reducing the constant pain.
To be fair, that’s a poor example, as the research on ME/CFS is dogshit. It never gets the attention it deserves and its victims suffer in deafening silence, because it’s not some sexy field to research and there’s no immediate, highly visible threat to the almighty economy.
We’re seeing this mirrored with long COVID. At least 16 million Americans are suffering from it — nearly 1 in 20 — and, even with rates that enormously high, research is moving at a glacial pace. There’s no operation warp speed, no coordinated global effort, nobody in world leadership gives a fuck.
I’m not sure it’s as crystallized as that yet, but I agree with your sentiment. Everyone should have the right to choose to die but if the reason is “there was no other option,” then, we should be damn well sure we offered everything we could. Let’s not be taking societal shortcuts to “oh well, we gave it our best shot.”
I support someone’s right to end their own suffering, 100%, but it is very bad form to: be ABLE to help someone, INGORE that they are suffering, but SMILE while helping them polish their gun.
Yep. I believe people should have choices, but after proper care. My daughter has Anorexia, but since she was still not an adult she had access to a counsellor, medication, and programs. It turned her life around. But once you are 19+ there is nothing unless you have lots of money
It doesn’t help when a government offical got in trouble for suggesting a veteran apply for MAID when they complained about having chronic pain.
There’s a conspiracy theory that the government has rolled out MAID as a way to lower healthcare costs by just killing people instead of treating them and stories like these add fuel to that fire.
Yeah, like I think the option should exist once you’ve passed certain qualifiers. But being mentally ill has so many consequences from capitalism. I myself struggle with metal health at times, and those times are always at their absolute worst financial problems come up. And our society is extremely difficult to get started in. Most people my age are only one paycheck away from desperation. When you’re mentally ill poverty is a symptom, you’re that much less capable of working. And society refuses to help you in the long term. You’ll always have to face your own unreliability as an existential threat, which worsens how unreliable you are.
It is morally wrong to euthanize people because capitalism has decided they have no worth, and because they can never have a life worth living without society changing. But thats almost never what people want to talk about, they want to talk about how it’s just wrong to let the unwell die. Never about how they can prevent us from becoming so unwell we cannot function.
Not at all, its just important not to lose sight of what the actual problem is here. The problem being that capitalism causes mental health problems, and makes it almost impossible to completely treat many mental health problems. We can’t concede that point, least of all now when it is a subject of national debate. People don’t want to just watch our vulnerable and impoverished choose death over continuing to suffer in ways they don’t have to. Theres a real point of radicalization here, a point where people want solutions and we can actually offer real ones to them.
People choose to commit suicide all the time for thousands of different reasons, medical assistance doesn’t enable suicide it simply makes it more humane.
I never said it did enable it, nor did I say that we shouldn’t have legal options for people who are suffering.
But again, this isn’t entirely an issue of medical ethics. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have MAID, I am saying that every single time the subject comes up we should be saying as loudly and as frequently as possible that many of these people are dying of capitalism. They are dying of wage slavery. They are killing themselves because capitalism has decided they have no worth, and they are facing homelessness starvation and spiraling health conditions as a consequence.
You’re misunderstanding me. I am not anti MAID. I’m not going to share too much personal details here but I’ve dealt with suicide many times in my adult life. I am well aware of how real the suffering of the mentally ill is. That only galvanizes my conviction that if you’re talking about this subject and you’re not pointing the finger at the Canadian government and absolutely demanding that they expand disability income, create UBI, and expand public Healthcare and ensure every Canadian citizen has access to widespread and competent mental health care - then you don’t have any actual interest in helping the mentally ill. Only in making sure that death is an option, which is kinda like ensuring veteran’s welfare after deployment by making sure they can kill themselves when society fails them. You can advocate for both. You can think that MAID should be an option and that our government has to actually make society a livable place.
You could give free mental health to every Canadian and still 3/4 of it would never use it due to stigma, so it wouldn’t even cost as much as they think
As someone with a medical condition I am afraid assisted suicide could become the expected solution. The same for old people or people with complex mental health issues or symptoms that aren’t curable yet. I wonder how it can be prevented to go down that path.
But then it wouldn’t be by choice, or am I not understanding you correctly? Assisted suicide without consent would in my mind always be considered murder or at least 2nd degree murder.
I would consider it a very fine line because suicide, by nature, is always a consenting choice. This does not mean anyone wants to die, most don't. If you ask them whether they would feel the same if all their problems were magicked away, you wouldn't really even need time to think. It's just that, for them, there is no other solution. Or at least, not one that seems like it could ever possibly be attainable. You're forced into it because there's no other way to make it fucking stop.
Your condition that patients be mentally sound, I question. Either understanding the consequence of their actions (the concept of death) would be enough and nearly everyone would be greenlit with an appropriate time span for consideration, or nobody would be because in order to make that choice you're almost certainly mentally ill.
If all it takes is understanding my own actions, I'd be approved tomorrow. Doesn't mean it's the first or even third option I'd choose. Just means I'm chronically broke, often homeless, and have been used and abused often enough that I don't even bother with the idea of a support system anymore. The most impactful of my illnesses is so rare it's hard to even find a therapist who mentions it at all, let alone one I'd click with. Of the medication legal in the states, one is not something I want to do because it has a risk of heavily worsening the dissociation that already leaves me non-functional, and the other causes brain damage.
It would be my choice, but it would not be a voluntary choice. It's just...the option that I have that isn't this. Which is by far the biggest risk here, of simply shrugging and egging those suffering to take the painless way instead of funding and supplying adequate treatment.
(this is, for somewhat obvious reasons, not to say I'm against MAID. I think since people are going to do this, they should have a way to do so that isn't horrifically painful, with a lower likelihood of just making someone's hilariously shit life somehow even shittier. But this is not a game, and the inexpensiveness of handwaving the people problems is a genuine danger.)
I mean an unspoken expectation. Don’t know if you’ve personally dealed with a disability, but it is quite shocking how some people think you should live your life (or rather shouldn’t) when you are disabled.
“Gently nudging” people into assisted suicide is something I can guarantee you will happen in situations where a person is considered a burden to the ones around them. The question is, can you make such a system safe in an environment where we still attribute value to people in dependence on how productive they are? Or, even worse, how do we protect people who cost society a lot of money and aren’t considered valuable?
When mental health issues are considered a valid reason for assisted suicide, I think these cases become an issue.
If you’re ever at an anti-LGBTQ march “for the children”, ask these bigots why they aren’t marching against the sexual exploitation of children in local parishes.
They will stutter on their words, I guarantee. Seeing this strategy in action is hilarious and highly effective!
Yes, but the government is not grooming children in the church, it is for grooming children in the schools, it is trying to force the grooming of children in the schools.
Bigots really want to pretend that some teenager discovering that they are gay or trans is a result of some massive conspiracy rather than, you know, they just being gay or trans.
They call it "grooming" when LGBT people simple exist in society where people might notice them, and they want to make such a scandal that people don't even think what is the opposite of that which they want.
It’s so vile. I detest that so many people are so willingly and freely hateful of complete and utter strangers, over things that don’t effect anyone else.
This is slowly turning into everything history lessons warned me of, and it’s insane. We are in 2023, we have the damned WORLD at our fingertips, yet people happily choose blind hatred, even if it means they also get harmed in the process themselves.
I hate all of this. I used to believe that way more people were actually caring and intelligent, but it seems like many are very eager to prove that as wrong as possible.
If you ask me, it’s fuckin’ ironic that “facts over feelings” is a point that they try to make. Science supports transitioning, so that doesn’t even make sense. Many animals change their full bio sex in nature. It really shouldn’t be rocket science that humans change genders. It’s not a new thing either, historically speaking. We’ve been transitioning for a pretty long time, throughout many years and cultures.
Also teens are learning who it is they are and are going to try out all kinds of identities and activities til they find ones that fit. For some that includes their sexuality. No one is forcing kids to try being gay or trans, just not judging them for the curiosity. Some of those kids will find out that they are more comfortable that way, some will find out it is not really for them. C’est la vie.
Oh cool someone else who has no idea what they’re talking about! I’m in the education industry and work closely with 7 schools in my local district. No one is grooming or indoctrinating children, those are conservative buzz words. They’re simply teaching the kids that if they don’t feel like they fit the gender norms that it’s okay.
Riighhht, because your browser popping an image into temporary cache is the exact same as downloading a pdf into your downloads folder, as long as you ignore the security implications of holding random pdfs in long term storage, bypassing browser security features, and relying solely on your pdf viewer.
I mean semantically sure, you’re not wrong, but you’re well aware of what I meant and your condescending attitude reaks of someone stuck on the first peak of a Duning-Kruger chart.
Name one drag queen who has ever been convicted of grooming and sexually abusing children.
I said to someone once, "There are branches of several international organizations in town that have a centuries old well documented history of grooming and sexually abusing millions of children worldwide then hiding the abuse and moving the abusers to other locations so that they can continue to groom and sexually abuse children. These are the same organizations that are telling you that drag queens are the problem. Why aren’t you protesting them? "
That’s a bold but risky move, I wouldn’t bet the argument on someone having dug up some obscure examples. The set of people in drag has to contain at least one, and using a ‘gotcha’ like that could backfire.
But you’re right, they do seem exceedingly rare. Like, weirdly rare compared to the general population, even.
This is because interest in expressing one’s fabulousness and interest in abusing kids are radically different things. People become drag queens because they are too fabulous to be contained by a single gender and they have to hold it in with Spanx. People become religious leaders because they are trusted positions of power which can provide an opportunity for them to abuse kids and other vulnerable groups with little risk of consequences.
I’ll give them a list of 1,000 clergy who have been convicted and ask them for the name of another drag queen who had been. They will run out of drag queens long before I run out of thousands of clergy.
The drag queens are sinners, but the priests are believers and are forgiven for all of those children that they shoved their dicks into the asses and mouths of.
Wait, was that too graphic? Well it should be. By now “sexual abuse” has been overused into meaninglessness. Start calling it what it is and see if anything changes
Canada is the 12th safest country in the world. The US is 129th.
Can we just stop comparing ourselves to the States for once? Our Literally Fascist Neighbours don't warrant any consideration when discussing the quality of life here.
We have it very good here.
Which segments of the population are you choosing to speak for here, exactly?
The people who complain about Canada often hold the US up as an example of what Canada should be because they can have guns, have hate speech, and are free to discriminate against people they hate
In some aspects sure. Try being at the beginning of your adult life right now. Housing, the cost of food/goods, a lethargic/apathetic government. Those things should be enough evidence to say that we aren't the second best country in the world.
Those things should be enough evidence to say that we aren’t the second best country in the world.
And yet…they aren’t. Canada ranks very high in quality of life, personal and religious freedom, and many other measures. There are problems, yes, but they are problems effecting the second best country in the world to live in. People living other places are dying to come here.
The cities are completely unaffordable.
All of the parties are in favour of using TFW programs to suppress workers rights and not doing anything about blatantly illegal anti-worker activities.
The Trudeau government is welcoming immigrants at a rate of at least 3% of the population per year(not the problem), but not spending a penny on infrastructure to support that kind of increase(a big problem)
Carbon offset credits are a complete joke.
The ISPs are in charge of the body that is supposed to regulate and rein them in.
BC is being devastated by climate change and Ottawa isn't lifting a damn finger on it.
Its not fair to dismiss the problems of the people who lead very difficult lives in this country because someone on the other side of the planet has it worse there.
Where is your perspective on that?
"Sorry, I know you have an unhappy and difficult life but you should just learn to be greatful because I saw people over yonder who have a different kind of difficult life."
You keep saying people need perspective, I think you do. You look at this country through rose coloured glasses.
I don’t dismiss the legitimate complaints of people who live in Canada. There are problems. I’ve said that repeatedly throughout these comments. What I’m saying is that Canada isn’t any of the things the neo-Nazis and the tankies say it is. It isn’t a dictatorship. It isn’t turning into a third world shithole. Our Prime Minister isn’t a Marxist and neither was his father. Canada is a great country and a great place to live. Wealth inequality is a big fucking problem. Corruption is a big fucking problem. The erosion of workers rights is a big fucking problem. Capitalism has run its course and it’s time for a change. That doesn’t mean that Canada is a bad place to live and the people who say it is is are entitled, whiney idiots.
I agree wholeheartedly with all of that. If you've stated those things throughout these comments, for some reason I cannot see them, so I apologize for harping on you.
I just disagree that it is the 2nd best country in the world to live in. Where it accurately lands I cannot say, but #2 is not it. And that's okay. I still love this country.
I just disagree that it is the 2nd best country in the world to live in. Where it accurately lands I cannot say, but #2 is not it. And that’s okay. I still love this country.
I do as well. I think it’s the best country in the world to live in. I’ve been lots of places, many high on that list and many very low on that list, and I would not choose to live in any of them instead of Canada.
Our Prime Minister isn’t a Marxist and neither was his father.
Well… the Canadian media did spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prove the Trudeau was not the love child of a self-proclaimed Marxist, which was quite strange as it makes absolutely no difference who his farther is.
I’m not sure that it was the media that did that. I suspect that it was the alt-right media (“alt” being their preferred pronoun instead of the more accurate “extreme”).
And…who is father is only matters to the right. No one else gives a shit about what other people are doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
I wouldn’t exactly call those outlets left leaning, but alt-right?
And…who is father is only matters to the right.
And that earlier commenter who was overly concerned about who his father was, making sure we knew he was the one that wasn’t a Marxist, as if that matters. Crazies to be found everywhere, I suppose.
I don’t use self-checkouts in retail stores, and I hate that some stores, like Shoppers, will try so hard to direct me to one when I’m in the queue for the cashier. I have put down merch and walked out of stores over this stance, and I no longer visit some stores (like Shoppers).
I’m not entirely against automated purchase systems. A completely touchless system would get a pass from me. I am against retailers forcing their customers to manually scan and check-out their products though, all while treating them as untrustworthy by dictating where they can place their scanned merch, weighing the merch as it’s scanned, and checking the receipts after doing so.
Obviously, none of this addresses the question of whether fully-automated retail spaces are actually good for the working class as a whole.
Yeah I agree. It’s a tough question, are trains good for horse stable workers? Like they might lose their jobs if people stop using horses.
What’s good for the working class as a whole is the end of bullshit work. You don’t argue to prop it up just because the system is shit, you argue to change the system.
What’s good for the working class as a whole is the end of bullshit work. You don’t argue to prop it up just because the system is shit, you argue to change the system.
I don’t disagree with automation, which is why I mentioned checkout-free systems. Still, you must recognize that this technology could eliminate hundreds of thousands (millions?) of jobs within a very short period of time and would have significant ramifications on society.
Right, but only because we organize things in such a way that all of the gains from automation go to the owners only. If we restructured things so that enough of that value went to the workers that they still made enough money to live but worked less, no one would fight automation. We would universally see it as a blessing.
I agree. My comments made no arguments for or against automation. I only pointed out that the broader debate about its long-term impact on society is beyond the context of OP’s post.
If we restructured things so that enough of that value went to the workers that they still made enough money to live but worked less, no one would fight automation.
Many of those workers would no longer be employed by the company, as they would now be surplus to requirements.
Between AI and robotics, millions will likely be surplused within the decade. Where will they go? Will the 55-year old cashier retrain to work in robotics? Will we mandate companies to find alternative positions? Will we finally tax the rich appropriately? Will we expand welfare? These are the kinds of questions I was alluding to in my original comment.
These don’t end bullshit work though. They just mean that I am doing it myself, but still paying the same price for my groceries.
If I got a discount for doing the self checkout, since the company isn’t paying a cashier, maybe it would be another story, but what they’re actually doing is saving money on labour and passing those savings onto themselves.
My local No Frills has shut down their express lane and directs people to their newly built self checkout. It’s basically the express lane except instead of the cashier scanning my items and taking the payment. I scan the items and give payment while a cashier hovers over my shoulder to make sure I’m not stealing anything
I understand the gravity of this consideration, and it’s commendable to abide by our Convention obligations — but at the same time it’s pretty rich to be lecturing Ukraine on the immorality of using against the invader the same weapons which Russia has been using against their schools, hospitals and residential areas since literally the first day of the war.
I read this more as a condemnation of the US (as opposed to Ukraine) for enabling further use of an indiscriminate weapon that will have civilian consequences for decades to come. But alas, it’s what I expect from those warmongers to our south. 😔
Russia is not bound by that treaty, and have been using them since they invaded. As such, not supplying them to Ukraine gives russia an advantage, thus being against the US supplying them to Ukraine is de-facto a pro-russian stance.
Putin loves it when Ukraine’s allies don’t offer more support because of ‘moral’ issues. Russia has no morals, and so time and again they get the upper hand because they can do whatever the fuck they want.
not supplying them to Ukraine gives russia an advantage, thus being against the US supplying them to Ukraine is de-facto a pro-russian stance.
I strongly disagree with you here. I’m not against providing any weapons to Ukraine, I just believe there are better options than cluster munitions — options which won’t still be killing civilians in the decades to come. I don’t believe that cluster munitions are in any way essential to Ukraine’s defence.
Ukraine and its allies can’t do anything (short of surrendering, which I certainly don’t advocate) to stop Russia’s use of them, and there will be long-term consequences. But that doesn’t make it a good — or even neutral — idea to add on additional long-term consequences. The more unexploded ordinance, the more danger to residents in the future.
I hope he went into it knowing the risks as well, at least. Like I said, I’m sorry they died, even if it was kinda their fault a bit. (The active lava field guy was last years Darwin Award winner for self-selecting out, if nobody gets the reference)
The father’s sister (the 19 y/o’s aunt) said that he was terrified to go and was only doing it because his dad was obsessed with the Titanic and it was near father’s day. I feel bad for him.
Kids die all the time (like the migrant kids) and at least this kid got to live a 1%er lifestyle for 19 years. Not much of a consolation prize for an early death, though…
canada
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.