arcana

arcana, 9 days ago

@kaia I was led to believe that Europe had no cars, was I mistaken?

arcana, 9 days ago

@lain it’s hilarious how many people aren’t getting the joke here

arcana, 9 days ago

@lain Or casting ogham staves

arcana, 9 days ago

@lain where are these taken?

arcana, 9 days ago

@lain what time of day was the second photo taken? The lighting is very nice

arcana, 10 days ago

@sun @grillchen @sim not a good look for a Japan honestly

arcana, 10 days ago

@sim @grillchen @sun I do think part of it is cultural tbh, the maker of Misskey for example defended and claimed to be an enjoyer of questionable content

arcana, 10 days ago

@sun @grillchen @sim I consider the content to be in the same category tbh, what the Misskey admin defended is legally defined the same in the UK and many other countries

arcana, 10 days ago

@sun @grillchen @sim the way I see it, let’s say there is a drawing of two men having sex. That is gay porn regardless of the medium. Therefore, it follows that illegal porn remains illegal porn regardless of the medium.

If somebody gets off to drawings of gay men, they’re into gay porn. They like it because of the content not the medium. Same applies elsewhere. I’ve never seen somebody who “enjoys” the “artwork” not turn out to be into the actual thing.

arcana, 10 days ago

@sun @grillchen @sim It’s harmful because it further encourages and normalises the behaviour

arcana, 10 days ago

@sun @grillchen @sim I’m not saying that they should be treated exactly the same but this angle seems to be “keep penalty as is for the real life stuff but decriminalise the other mediums” whereas I see it more a case of “keep penalty as it is for the other mediums and make it a capital offence for the real life stuff”

Specifically flaying is the penalty that should be set forth for the creation of such material

arcana, 10 days ago

@grillchen @sim @sun a stay of execution for those who snitch of others involved with evidence to ensure it’s enforced too

Society takes a far too light stance on certain matters. In the UK, you go to prison for longer if you defend your property than you do if you’re a serial nonce

arcana, 10 days ago

@grillchen @sim @sun Lethal force is proportional if they're on your property and you didn't invite them in. Full stop.

arcana, 10 days ago

@grillchen @sim @sun People always go to those things. It's obviously contextual and in those contexts people don't just gun people down and didn't historically when such principles were common place.

arcana, 10 days ago

@grillchen @sim @sun >woman was walking her dog. who didnt like the dog came to her and shot the dog. woman took the gun and bashed the man dead.

The woman was in the right. He shot her dog and she should have a right to kill the man in retaliation. Ultimately though that seems like a dispute best left to the families to solve between themselves.

It's good that she was ruled innocent and I think her efforts are commendable. The man shouldn't have shot her dog.

arcana, 10 days ago

@twinspin6 @grillchen @sim @sun If they're on your property and clearly up to no good (people have a sense for this), then sure. Most people however would enquire as to why the person was on their property first and give them a chance to retreat.

arcana, 10 days ago

@sun @grillchen @twinspin6 @sim Why hand over your control of this to the police? People should defend their own property themselves or with their own hired guards and staff if the property size merits it.

arcana, 10 days ago

@twinspin6 @grillchen @sim @sun It's not for free though, unless they're a volunteer militia, it's being funded via taxation. A small investigatory group after the fact may be necessary (though I still believe this doesn't need to be state provided), but police as an organized thing are unnecessary and expensive, and lead to an erosion of rights.

"Why do you need to defend yourself, the police are right there?"

arcana, 10 days ago

@grillchen @twinspin6 @sim @sun Then people can earn prestige for themselves and good reputation by protecting you as was often the case in historical societies. The same societal standards that had alms and hospitality as very common concepts and the duties of lords. For the lord of a land, if people were being picked off or harmed in their lands, that reflected very poorly on them and their reputation and so they'd often use their personal retinue to deal with the situation.

Much like how during the Great Fire of London, many foreigners who were otherwise left abandoned or even blamed by the common folk of London were protected by and aided by the King's own Lifeguards, and his brother's Lifeguards

arcana, 10 days ago

@grillchen @twinspin6 @sim @sun It was realistic and worked quite well for millennia. Also, I think the problem here in a way is considering it "rich people".

I think this brings to mind billionaires holding shares and upper middle class business moguls running things. I think there's a world of difference between them and what lords and nobles were.

For the former, their personal wealth is not necessarily tied to how well the society does, nor are they motivated by legacy in the same way. The latter however very much are incentivized to see their lands thrive and be prosperous and pleasant as it directly affects them. If they just up and leave, they have nothing because it's a society and land that represents their worth.

Also the French Revolution is extremely misunderstood and there's a reason that Napoleon was so popular when he restored the institutions of a monarchy. It's an incredibly long topic, but it's been extremely heavily propagandized. The French Revolution, far from being the common folk rising up, was actually an upper middle class attempt to enrich themselves. King Louis XVI was not rich compared to his enemies in terms of actual liquid resources. He was "rich" insofar as France was rich.

arcana, 11 days ago

@vriska @kaia Rottom