Non-monogamists. Not referring to simply polyamorists or even relationship anarchists, but non-monogamists in general. When I saw LGBT equality unfold in the first world, I thought “yay we’re finally throwing off those norms” but here we are a decade or so later and polyamory still gets everyone saying “meh”. The only time I’ve ever seen polyamorists in late night media was in an episode of The Resident, and it was used to illustrate the man as a cult leader, which tied into the show like pineapple ties into pizza (I do not miss that show). But you have an LGBT couple in every five episodes.
I don’t “meh” is hate. Just don’t think people are interested in non-monogamous relationships. I find it funny though because people still cheat and we have a high divorce rate, yet people still shame others for being promiscuous and desire to be in monogamous couples.
I think this one is tough. I know a few people that consensual non-monogamy has worked out well for (long term), but most of the people that I know who tried it out it hasn’t gone well. So I’m not against it in theory, but it comes with a lot of caveats. I don’t personally know anyone who began a monogamous relationship, transitioned to poly, and had it end well. I tend to think of this scenario as a sign of relationship trouble, or a cause of it. Maybe it’s not polyamory’s fault that so many people in relationship trouble are drawn to it.
I know a lot of people for whom monogamy hasn’t turned out well, too. Lots of divorces and broken hearts. If you think of all the relationships that don’t work out, the ones that do are miracles.
That’s fair for sure. I do think I’ve lived long enough to know a few predictors of failed relationships though, and if someone tells me they’re opening up the relationship, then I expect them to be done within a year.
It’s true, and I kind of mentioned that in my original comment. I’m just speaking from my experience. I do know one couple with an open relationship who have been going strong for years. The difference for them (I think) is that they have been poly since the beginning.
It’s pretty common to the point of being cliché that “we opened up out relationship” will fail. Usually the people involved are going to come at it in an extremely hierarchical way. Often there are existing problems that aren’t being addressed. It’s almost at the same tier as “let’s have a baby to save our relationship”
People who are non monogamous from the start I expect have similar success rates as anyone else.
Yeah, I understand not wanting it in one’s own relationship, but other people should be allowed to do whatever they want. I don’t understand getting upset at a polyamorous couple. If you don’t like it then just don’t do it yourself
There’s a ‘polyamorous’ couple in You and they’re a terrible representation of polyam. They’re more swinger, which I know a lot of and they’re cool, but not the same.
Polyamory is wildly misunderstood and gets a lot of negative feedback as a result in my experience, and while I know it’s not for everyone, ENM is a solution that would let a lot of people be a lot happier than they are today.
Nickelback. I mean they're not good but they're not really bad either, just a complete nonevent. They don't deserve the hate they get, they don't really deserve anything
Holy fuck, that article is elitist. Half of the sections seem pointlessly mean, like they’re trying to dunk on them to win popularity points. One of them is just insulting Chad Kroeger for marrying Avril Lavigne, as if a 10+ year marriage is a bad thing. Some valid points buried in there, but the credibility is lost.
Why would you hate someone for making music you don’t enjoy? Why hate someone for making money with a successful product? Why not just… Ignore them? You are under no obligation to like them, but there’s only around three arguments in there to actually hate them. There are more arguments in that article that boil down to “it’s successful, so it sucks” than valid criticism.
Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy rock music (among others), but assholes like Nickelback are making terrible example of it. When someone asks me what I listen to and I reply “rock music” the person often reply along the lines of “ah, ok, like Nickelback?” And that’s just disgusting.
I don’t actively hate on them posting shit on the internet on my own or marching with antiNickelback sign in RL, but when someone asks or when discussion revolves around, I tell him I hate the band.
Being successful musician has nothing to do with it. People like Kanye or Taylor Swift made way more money with their (IMO shitty) music, but I don’t hate them as Nickelback. Because they (probably, or at least not that obviously) don’t ruin the genre they perform in.
Edit: Half of what I want to say is probably lost in translation as English is not my native language, so I can’t make all the nuances I would do in my language.
First, this was never about your opinion. It was about an article that complained about music being used in advertising, songs being popular, and people being inspired by a band. That was the opinion you cited as a good reason to hate them.
Second, how often does that actually happen? Considering it’s an internet meme to shit on them, how often do people cite Nickelback as their main example of rock ahead of, say, Nirvana?
Third, why is it disgusting that people mention a band you dislike? Can you not simply correct them and suggest the bands you ACTUALLY like? Does it have to be “hate” rather than “I’m not a fan”?
Fourth, how the hell did Nickelback ruin rock? Is rock so fragile that the Eagles can’t be enjoyed because of “How you remind me” existing? There are bands far worse than Nickelback, but they aren’t successful so you don’t care. If Nickelback weren’t as successful, you wouldn’t care about them either.
…But you don’t have to listen to it. If it’s on the radio, change the station. The complaints in the article were WAY too in depth for a casual listener to make.
Scenario 1: It’s your radio. Turn to a different station.
Scenario 2: It’s a friend’s radio. Ask them to turn to a different station.
Scenario 3: It’s a public radio. Just zone out for three minutes.
And on the subject of not getting to choose the songs, what station is choosing to play 20 year old songs by a band it’s a meme to hate?
Yeah, most of the hate is because they were super overplayed for a solid decade. For years the popular radio stations in my area didn’t seem to play anything but Nickelback, green day, Lady Gaga, and pink. In a vacuum, they’re fine. “How you remind me” is pretty good imo. I don’t care for anything else from them. I’ve heard that their guitar player is actually really talented, but I haven’t listened to them enough to know myself
I dont want to listen to them because there is nearly infinite better music than the overproduced boring stuff. Some tunes are catchy, even seen them live once because my mom wanted company, but they are mid at best imo
I think they’re a relic from a time when it was ok/cool to hate on a band or artist for no reason, publicly, without everyone judging you for being a prick.
My theory is that they’re one of, if not the, last bands to fall into the above category, so everyone just uses them as their go-to.
Younger people (in this case meaning people under 35 lol) are just so much more accepting and less judgemental than previous generations. And you love to see it.
The thing is, Nickelback didn’t invent post-grunge or radio grunge, but they were definitely face of it. That era saw a nearly endless stream of cookie cutter Pearl Jam wannabes pop up, and at the same time the entire independent radio industry, which had played a big role in birthing so many counterculture movements, was under threat of corporate consolidation when they were getting popular in the late 90s.
To many millennials, nothing else embodied this dark era for rock music like Nickelback. It was “we have Eddie Vedder at home” meme - shoved down our throats, carbon copied every few months, constantly reminding us that the alternative rock station we grew up with was purchased by Clearchannel and would be transitioned to Latin Beats by the end of the year.
So in that sense, Nickelback may not have killed grunge, but it happily set up shop on its grave, to forever pantomime and disrespect the alternative rock giants laying below. And for a lot of people, that was just too painful.
There’s always atleast two sides to each story and more often than not the truth is somewhere in the middle. If you think something is clear-cut you’re almost guranteed to be mistaken and misinformed and many of your dearest beliefs are totally wrong.
I think social media, particularly Twitter, has bred this. Twitter is designed in a way that makes it impossible to have an actual structured debate and instead encourages short and unambiguous statements which cannot possibly accurately encapsulate an issue
Because isn’t that literally what conservatives do? Pick wedge issues then make quick soundbites about “common sense” “solutions” that align with simple black & white thinking and conservative values?
Yes, social media has destroyed nuance. Recognizing that a person can understand a position without believing that position is also gone. And people are often performing for likes and “ratio” and discussing in bad faith and being intentionally obtuse in the hopes of getting more attention.
I’ve taken to letting people know my opinion that if they are omicient they are wasting their talent arguing about piddly topics with subjectives like myself
Pit-bulls. Most of their bad reputation comes from organizations that campaign against their very existence and people will quote pit-bull bite statistics with the same lack of irony as a white nationalist quoting FBI crime statistics about people of color.
Okay, I’m trying to understand your argument here. Are you saying that pitbulls are being racially profiled and that information from other dogs aren’t being collected or that bites of the same severity by other dogs aren’t being correctly gathered or are bring suppressed? And, if so, what are the factors that should be taken into account when discussing dog bites or dog aggression?
I think the reason they are making that comparison is that there are a lot of other factors that feed into the final numbers. Crime stats aren’t a final determination of the inherent criminality of different groups of people. Things like poverty, arrest rates, and conviction rates all skew the numbers.
With pit bulls, people often get them because they want a dog that’s “tough” and they essentially train (or don’t train) them to be bad dogs. The dog itself isn’t at fault.
Anyone who’s been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey. The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
Anyone whos been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey.
There you go, thats exactly the point. But they aren’t killing any babies. Pitbulls were bred for fighting. People have Tigers and Lions as pets too. Is that also justified?
The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
Of course it’s not the dog’s fault. It is just an animal. It’s the breeders’ and the owners’ fault. Nobody is advocating for euthanasing Pitbulls. Maybe just get a Golden Retriever if you’re just looking for a pet next time.
Yes, the breed should be distroyed. But not the poor living animals. We should simply stop breeding more of them. Pitbulls are a freak of nature created for the amusement of humans.
I mean, dog breeding is in general terribly inhumane. All dogs should ideally be mutts. They’d certainly all be healthier and have a better quality of life.
The real difference is pitbulls bite to kill, most other dogs dont. Any dog can get triggered, but certain breeds like bullies and dogos, ridgbacks, they bite to kill. It is as instinctual as a pointer pointing or a sheep dog herding.
Just watch a lot of footage of a shepard attacking a human vs a pitbull. The shepard generally goes for the arm or leg and the bully drags you down so it can go for the face and neck.
Heck, one time when I was driving a bully charged my van! I was doing 50km and he charged out, and bashed into my door! I didnt stop, and it didnt seem hurt it just went after the car behind me....
The other user who responded to you, @evasive_chimpanzee, does a good job of analyzing the core idea here. To quote Benjamin Disraeli, there’s lies, damn lies, and statistics. Black people are no more “innately inclined towards criminality” than a pit-bull is innately inclined towards mauling people. Where people of color have been historically over policed, profiled by the criminal justice system, and generally set up to have a higher rate of criminal statistics than other ethnic groups, pit-bulls face similar statistical problems. Bite statistics are often self-reported by people who either witnessed a dog attack or who were themselves victims of one. Identifying a dog’s breed by sight, especially for mixed breed dogs, is nearly impossible, and more error prone than accurate. And for a pound, any “big dog with a blocky head” immediately gets labeled as a pit-bull, even if it has literally no pit-bull DNA. These dogs are routinely adopted by people who explicitly train a dog to be mean to people, as opposed to socializing them. The fact that they also have this reputation as guard dogs or attack dogs exacerbates their reputation.
I already suggested this in another comment, but you can easily apply a thought experiment here. Magically replace all white people with black people with the same upbringing: does crime go up, down, or basically stay the same? Magically replace all pitbulls with chihuahuas with the same upbringing: do maulings go up, down, or basically stay the same?
Couldn’t tell the cops if the mugger was white or black? Pretty understandable. Couldn’t tell the cops if the dog that bit you was a chihuahua or a pitbull? Really?
Any “big dog with a blocky head” should be banned from breeding or sale, and nobody who agrees with that statement cares about DNA. It is a matter of public safety and it doesn’t matter that humans are the real problem, because humans are notoriously hard to control. The pitbulls and similar breeds we have today deserve all the love and comfort we can give them now, but they shouldn’t be bred into the future because there is no legitimate reason to own one except for its potential for violence and flatulence-scapegoating.
I worked as an insurance agent. In the states I had my P&C licenses in, we were legally required to base rates on data. i.e statistically how much the company paid out in claims given certain factors. One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk. Just like teenagers by and large, aren’t as safe drivers. It isn’t “fair” in that the dog didn’t choose to be the breed it is and some of them really are good dogs but statistically, averaged over the whole, they are more of a risk than other dog breeds are.
One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk.
This is a classic example of someone observing a statistical correlation between specific factors and using that to assert a direct causal relationship between them. It implies that an insurance agency is able to 1) accurately identify every single breed of dog in every single insurance related incident (which is definitely not the case, because I doubt every insurance company is doing genetic testing on every single dog it comes across) and 2) tie a causal relationship between dog breed and incident. If I were going by typical insurance metrics, and to borrow from your analogy of “teenagers as unsafe drivers,” you would also assume that red Camarros, something more expensive to insure than your more conservative sedan, were statistically more dangerous than, say, a white Civic, as if they were what caused their drivers to get into car accidents, as opposed to young, reckless people interested in a fast sports car to simply go out and buy one. These are people who would be reckless behind the wheel of any car, but who are statistically correlated with a particular type of one. But you still mark the red Camaro as more expensive to insure regardless of who buys it because it’s statistically correlated with a higher degree of accidents.
These are multibillion dollar companies (actually they insure trillions in assets) whose whole job is to be very very good at assessing risk. You thinking you know better is peak Dunning-Krueger.
“If a big corporation says something is one way, it must be so. They have a lot of money, after all.” Your argument is peak “Argument to Authority.” I guess it’s a good thing those insurance companies like AIG were able to effectively assess their degree of risk exposure in the housing markets in 2008 and avoid collapsing when the housing market imploded. Oh, wait…
OMFG there is no evil conspiracy by USAA and every other insurance company against pitbulls JFC. Pitbulls are just statistically much more dangerous than other animals.
They’re statistically correlated with incidents of mauling. Nobody is denying the statistical correlation. But there is a difference between observing a statistical correlation between breed and maulings and asserting a causal relationship. My argument is that the assertion that “pit-bulls are innately, biologically predisposed towards violence against people and other animals” is not supported by meaningful evidence. If you are arguing that they are, then you’re gonna have to convince me with more than “insurance companies say they are.”
The number of maulings would go down even if you replaced every Golden Retriever with a chihuahua. Replacing every member of a particular breed of dog capable of mauling someone with a member of a breed incapable of it would always cause a reduction in instances. Maybe you think we should go around Old Yellering every Golden Retriever in the world, just to be safe?
Question: Does his company factor FBI crime stats into it too? Why not? “Despite being 12% of the population black people commit 50% of crime” and suddenly now since it’s optically bad to charge black people higher rates “causation only equals correlation when we can’t be called racist for it?”
That shit don’t sit right with me tbh.
And what about German Shepherds that have bit 11 secret service agents? Secretly pits? Hating pits but not other large breeds is frankly silly imo (unless you hate black people too because the only important thing ever is statistics). At least hate Chows too, since they’re arguably more aggressive, and German Shepherds, Presas, Boxers, Rotts, etc. Shit at the very least German Shepherds were the Nazis dogs and they’re the ones the cops use now, and they’re “not” “bred to attack” over pits? Come off it.
The causal link is implied. When someone says “Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk,” this is another way of saying that a particular breed of dog is innately more dangerous than another. Not that it has the potential to be more dangerous, but objectively is. The only logical deduction from this statement is that there must be something about the animal’s breed that makes it this way. It’s literally the exact same logic used by people who cite FBI crime statistics in order to paint specific entire ethnic groups as innately “more criminal” than another ethnic group.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though. I’ve known dog owners that get those breeds specifically and they have no understanding of how to treat a dog. Like they’ll get a working dog and an cage it all day then wonder why it’s aggressive. I’d like to know the difference. Because too many people get dogs for looks and don’t actually give a fuck a about the dogs soul.
Sorry if I come off aggressive, I just talk like that… I’m genuinely curious about this.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though.
This is sort of my point. A pit bull that’s socialized, well trained, and cared for is generally very safe to be around. A pit bull that has the opposite kind of life? Well, what kinda dog wouldn’t be an asshole under those circumstances?
Sure but then the problem is moron owners, not the dog or it’s breed. Those morons could be just as cruel to a German Shepherd, Boxer, Rottweiler, Presa Canario, Bullmastiff, etc. Nature vs Nurture I guess.
I’m this way with German Shepherd s . I live dogs, Ive had big dogs, I met plenty of friendly Sheperds, but both my mom and I have been bite by 3 different ones (over our lifetimes). Now I am on edge around them.
Yeah, being fat shouldn’t be a qualifier for anything IMHO. Like, let people live their lives in peace! There are pleasant and unpleasant fat people, as there are thin, so why does weight have to do with anything?! It is baffling to me we have to work so hard to humanize fat persons. Fat bias is so ingrained in our culture people think is ok.
Some of the fat people I’ve worked with were so much more hard working than others. But on other hand some customers I’ve dealt with were the worst customers. There was a notorious mother daughter duo that my co workers labeled the “Thunder Cunts”. The sad part is they had kids that probably.lived a life of hell.
Yeah, child abuse is no joke. I bet you also had non fat customers who were a pain in the ass too, so it is not about weight, but about being an insufferable tw4twaffle.
I think the issue is with normalizing unhealthy bodies. idc how you look as long as you’re healthy, but society is becoming increasingly accepting of obviously unhealthy lifestyles and bodies. It’s no better than anorexia.
Unhealthy bodies like how? What dobyou mean by that? How can you know someone’s health status and or lifestyle by the way they look? If that were true, blood Labs and other tests would be useless.
Meh, that is lazy medicine IMHO and at the same time, it says a lot about the health system and its practitioners. We need better educated more empathetic doctors who go beyond looking at someone to make assumptions about someone’s health.
I would say that this is a problem of lacking resources, not laziness. I’ve never met a doctor that didn’t have a constant stream of patients and non-stop work to do.
If your eyeballs are missing, I can make an assumption that your vision isn’t great just by looking at you. That’s not a moral judgement.
Doesn’t mean blood tests are useless, and in fact it means we have some idea where to start investigating a potential health problem.
Yes, I agree that there’s bias against folks who are overweight, and also that there’s a range of risk associated with being overweight. It’s pretty clear, however, that obesity is a health concern that we should take seriously. If someone smokes five pack of cigs a day, I’m going to make an assumption about their lung health. There’s always outliers that live to 100 smoking and not doing exercise, but it would be a shit doctor if they didn’t tell folks not to follow their example.
Well yea but when it comes to politics, nothing has only advantages. I just hate how this exact policy receives so much aggressive hate from liberals for not more reason than liberal policy has
I have only seen a lot of hateful liberals. That’s why I said that. It was more of a rant. Seriously why are they so aggressive? They only make this world worse with their hatred. Though I’m sure there are aggressive conservatists too. I just haven’t seen them yet
Never heard any anti-trans rhetoric, or just agree with it? ‘Cause I see calling for a group to be eradicated from public life as generally making the world worse.
In other words, watch CPAC and try to remember that the things they say are about real people, and they pass legislation negatively affecting those real people.
I don’t even think I’m a conservative. I don’t follow any conservative speakers, leaders etc. And I respect different opinions. But hatred is always bad. I saw a ton of hateful and aggressive liberals that seemed to act aggressively towards any different opinion (not only conservative I think). That is always bad. If you like aggression, well, I’d suggest therapy
Where did you see it? I’ve seen a ton of stuff like that on social media, but social media amplifies awful takes and has a large population of people lacking perspectives. It doesn’t represent the real world all that well.
Speaking on aggression, there is a large contingent of people in this country who are actively hoping for a civil war and the opportunity to shoot their neighbors over opinions they don’t like or living lives they don’t approve of.
Yes I was talking about social media. I know they don’t even remotely represent the whole population but the fact that liberals were the most aggressive remains the same. I hope in real life there are a lot of peaceful and kind people. And the USA have become aggressive in all possible ways recently so that was expected. Maybe that’s one of the reasons to liberals’ aggression too since they are mostly American afaik. Well hopefully it will all stop soon. People shouldn’t be like that no matter their political views and preferences
Yes, no. An ideology that celebrates killing minorities, women, and the queer community deserves all the hate it gets. The latest victim to your favorite ideology, Nex Benedict in the US and the entire Palestinian population vis-a-vis Netanyahu’s conservative government. Conservatism belongs exactly where it is in the public’s eye. If not moreso.
Like many things, I get the ideology and theory, but I don’t understand it in practice. Which basically goes for all politics.
Basically they all require force to realistically attain because chaos rules reality and you cant fuck with chaos and the laws of universe or else bad stuff happens. Maybe things could change later on if humanity makes it that far… But we are nowhere near that.
Politics is hard in practice. There are always going to be factors that’ll make ideas hard or even impossible to implement (any ideas, not only conservative)
It is not. It is actually what the word “fair” means. You get hate (a bad thing) for doing hate (a bad thing). Completely fair in my opinion. There’s nothing wrong in critics though. Unfortunately every part of the US culture and government tries to distort it
The conservative part of my views is more about not legalizing things that were not legalized previously (if they do tend to cause damage to people of course). Lol I can see that downvotes by every single USA citizen on Lemmy for that one. Maybe I can explain further if needed but later. I think taxation is important and can be kept high if needed. The government probably shouldn’t regulate the industry much but the opposite situation has its advantages as well (EU government nailed that). Private life should always stay private though + mass surveillance is a huge waste of resources that is not good in any perspective. I don’t identify myself as a conservative in the traditional meaning of this world. I have my own views
I’ve seen like 5 comments where you refuse to expand on your views. This is a formal invitation to bring your opinion to the marketplace of ideas and have it sorted out.
My views are not detailed yet that’s true. But what in the world is a marketplace of ideas? A thing that has a 100 pages contract and is meant to steal intellectual property (jk)? Lol that’s not gonna work on me. And “sorting out someone’s opinion” is highly immoral in my opinion (unless it’s done to prevent an immediate threat and the “brainwasher” consents his actions after the threat is eliminated). Anyone who intentionally attempts to do it to me is to be deleted
You ever read Fahrenheit 451? It’s just a decent read imo, but it has a few gems worth mentioning. In case you’re unfamiliar, it follows the story of a man (named Guy) who lives in a future version of America where books have been outlawed.
Guy meets a former English professor and begins to read in secret. In one of their meetings, the English professor tries to get Guy to talk about what he’s thinking, but Guy is being timid in sharing his thoughts. The professor then says this
You’re afraid of making mistakes. Don’t be. Mistakes can be profited by. Man, when I was young I shoved my ignorance in people’s faces. They beat me with sticks. By the time I was forty my blunt instrument had been honed to a fine cutting point for me. If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you’ll never learn.
To hide your ideas this way is to live in a bubble, and you cannot grow your mind this way.
Mister, I literally lost the closest person recently. Developing my political views is not my priority now. And maybe that’s the reason why I became so active in political discussions. Also I ruined my personality already. I don’t have one now (though relatively stable political views still remain smh). I can only work in enforcement agencies at this point. That’s a thing I’m probably not terrible at. Anyways I did read that book. It was like 5 years ago though so I don’t remember much. And btw the lowest temperature of burning for paper is Celsius 451, not Fahrenheit
Enforcement agencies, vague talk about legalization, makes more sense, now we’re getting somewhere. Hope you’re able to find your way to a better career path. Lots of people partake in activities that others don’t approve of. I don’t think that means we should enforce our will on others. I personally think Christianity is a cult that primarily recruits through the indoctrination of children, but I’m also a fan of religious freedom. Condolences on your loss.
Lol I can’t even work because disability. Ik it’s kind of an extremist thing but I do think that enforcing is required when something gets really bad and creates a severe negative influence on the society. And if I can’t really be helpful in anything else, why don’t I choose that way? It’s not like everyone is good at it. Not caring about the well-being of your own children makes you a suspect already so careful with that one. Yes religious freedom is really important. And thank you
It’s harder to do in some countries, in the Netherlands there’s basically nothing to adopt and there’s plenty free puppies to get that were just randomly born.
There are many many sheltered dogs in other countries which could be imported by the Netherlands. A lot of German shelters do that and both of my dogs are/were originally from Romania. In that country they have a huge problem with stray dogs and many end up in killing stations. They even have a shelter with about 6000 dogs in it (Smeura, founded by an Austrian woman) and mostly export them to other countries because Romanians don’t seem to care about dogs.
If anyone wants to adopt a dog from another country I recommend going through local shelters/organizations that already have them imported. There are some sleazy practices going on with people breeding dogs and then selling them as if they were strays. Also you get to meet the dog upfront before making such a big decision.
There are no good dog breeders, or any pet breeders for that matter. In a world where thousands of abandoned pets are put down because there is no room anywhere for them, you have no good justification to purchase a pet from somebody who creates dozens more of them voluntarily to make money.
You were obviously talking about traditional pets, not service animals.
The service animal industry is also largely problematic and exploitative.
Rescue animals can serve as service animals in a large portion of cases anyways, you don’t need “purebreds” to work as herding animals, bomb detection animals, anxiety-comfort pets, guide pets for the blind, etc.
I know multiple people who have service/working animals and my spouse and I both work in the pet foster community, so no not uninformed.
Blockchain. Most of the people who have this hate don’t know how it works in even the most gross sense, believe that it and cryptocurrencies are the same thing, and have a visceral, knee-jerk reaction when they’re mentioned, without being able to explain why.
Cryptocurrency, too, although there are far more examples of bad actors in that space. But the concept of an economy that works across the internet entirely outside the control of 5-eyes surveillance states? Yes, please.
No. No more than, say, Lemmy. It’s just a cryptographically verifiable audit log.
This is not aimed at you; you asked a reasonable question. The height of ignorant hypocracy is people complaining about environmental impact (which is resource use) while using streaming movies, music, and online video games. Watching a Youtube video rant about the evils of Bitcoin uses more resources than syncing a day’s backlog of the Bitcoin blockchain. Most popular web sites these days are so packed with Javascript, they compete with shitcoin blockchain resource use.
Sounds like you’re thinking of proof of work cryptocurrencies. They use blockchains, but are not blockchains themselves. The blockchains part is trivially cheap to compute.
I’m sure there’s technological value in a write-only distributed database. I cannot come up with any good suggestions, but I’m sure that distributing links to ugly monkey pictures is probably not it.
Crypto miners are the reason why graphics card prices skyrocketed back when they did. And mining uses enormous amounts of energy and contributes over 100 million tons of CO2 emissions yearly. Fuck them.
Yeah, I completely agree. For a while there, it was the new “cloud.” What made it worse, I think, is that blockchain is a relatively simple concept ane a fu& programming exercise. And once you’ve written your first, you look side-eye at Bitcoin prices and the temptation is too much for some people.
It’s painful, because cryptocurrency - if done well, without POW - does address a number of capitalism problem spaces; and blockchain has applications in secure digital voting and other data integrity areas. Cryptobros do seem to be a rather unsavory lot, I’ll admit. The majority give off greasy libertarian vibes, and I mostly keep quiet about the topic for fear of being associated with them.
The issue is that cryptocurrency doesn’t really work without proof of work though, right? That’s the fundamental basis of how the Blockchain ensures correctness.
Proof of work has nothing to do with blockchain itself. In Bitcoin, POW is how new blocks are found, but blocks are just payloads stored in the chain. Other, non-currency data can (and is) be stored in the Bitcoin blockchain, and this data does’t necessarily require POW.
Bitcoin POW chunks might as well be new prime numbers; you spend a bunch of processing to calculate new primes, then you digitally sign the data and store those on the public blockchain and now you have digital currency. A blockchain block itself is no more CPU intensive than what it “costs” to set up a new SSL connection to whatever porn site you’re browsing. It’s literally just a chain of blocks of data hashes (even cheaper than your SSL connection) than include a previous block’s hash, and which are signed.
POW is part of the cryptocoin part; blockchain is entirely unrelated - it’s just a publically verifiable audit log (in this case also encapsulating the signed data).
There even exist cryptocurrencies which are not based on POW and the entire argument about environmental impact falls apart. Those have less environmental impact than Fortnight. But, in most cryptocurrencies there needs to be a mechanism to prevent people from arbitrarily printing cash and devaluing the system; aside from POW, staking is popular: you just buy coins outright. There are other methods; but in no case does the technology of blockchain involve POW.
For sure. Not to mention what a “trustless” digital currency could mean for the majority of the world which is not in the hegemonic monetary position.
People argue that The Fed is Democratic or that the PBC is antiimperilest butneithers’s plans for global currency dominance has the majority of people in the world having any control or say in their monetary policies. They are both, outside of the home countries undemocratic and imperialist.
And that’s just on crypto currencies the value of a denctralized smart contract and other function execution machine is also crazy cool to me.
The majority of the hype from get rich quick suckers and scammers deserve the hate they get IMHO. Even the suckers, because they really would be OK with getting rich off of doing nothing and just having everyone cater to them for it.
Classic, I’m guilty of this. The best part about cycling in my small city is squeezing into the gaps and not waiting around in the wind for the lights to cycle.
I see it as my reward for biking instead of driving to be both a pedestrian when I want (go through red lights when traffic is clear on safe streets) and a car when I want (take a lane to get around a delivery truck)
When you are riding in and around drivers in 2 ton machines because your city doesn’t have proper bike infrastructure, you take every single opportunity to avoid them. Call me a “bad cyclist” but I’m going to prioritize my safety over a law or someone’s bad driving any day.
That’s not “for absolutely no reason”. Some cyclists make a bad name for the rest.
Edit: Oh my goodness, you guys. I’m not saying hate for cyclists is justified, that I hate all cyclists, or that “all cyclists do x”. Some cyclists ride like they have a death wish. So do some drivers. Anyone, regardless of their vehicle, who is willing to put their life in my hands is someone I want to stay far the fuck away from.
I'm sure there are many reasons to hate on a cyclist, (not that I personally believe this, but) such as when they block a single lane road slowing traffic to a crawl and placing the responsibility of possibly accidentally killing a cyclist in the motorist's hands, though you could argue that's more about the fact that the roads don't have dedicated bike lanes, and that's not the cyclist's fault, but it is still a reason, not that that reason is justified, I like cyclists!
For thousands of years, people walked on roads. That’s what they were for. They were also for horses, donkeys, and carts, but humans were a big part of it. And none of those four things really goes faster than a bike. Cars are new. Taking people and horses off roads is new. Being able to drive the speed limit is a new, temporary condition, and it can be taken away at any time. Blaming this on cyclists is a reaction based on a misunderstanding of what roads are for. Personally, I support legislature to let people walk on the road however they like again.
Truth. Furthermore, accidents involving a bike and a car have mostly happened because of a lack of infrastructure and options for safe travel on bikes. Public residential streets, for example, are for all modes of transportation, not just cars. Car brains are hysterical and don’t like that, and my life has been threatened many times while riding my bike on residential streets. I even had an older woman match my speed, roll down her window, and say “Next time I see you I’m running you over.” Cyclists do absolutely nothing to deserve this, and even if they’re holding up traffic, it’s no excuse for homicide.
Downvoted for saying the truth. Most cyclist I met here are absolutely jerks, they drive not even on the sidelines - no, they fucking drive in the mid of the road and if you try to surpass they move to the left.
For some it’s not their fault they are a bit of a nuisance obviously (those who cycle near the sidewalks, who signal were they are going etc), the cyclist infastructure is non existent here
Bike lanes are car infrastructure. We cyclists are perfectly within our rights to cycle in the middle of the lane at a speed comfortable for us. And it’s safer for us to do that than hug the shoulder and risk getting clipped by an impatient driver. A bike lane gets us out of your way so you can drive the speed limit. It’s for your benefit.
The same hatred from the same haters for public transport too: if everyone else is in public transport there more room for you on the road.
It’s a bizarrely prevalent attitude from a bizarrely large portion of car users.
We had some nice mini-traffic island things separating a cycleway on a road, drivers kept hitting them and damaging their cars. They complained and the council removed them despite it being obvious to anyone that they were doing extremely what they were supposed to do: stopping those idiots from hitting actual cyclists!
I thought this as well but German drivers will dangerously swerve into oncoming traffic to overtake me sometimes when I block a lane. Even if there is a red stop light 50m down the road.
Well, it’s less of them, and at least they’re risking their own lives too. If there’s an accident I want the person responsible coming with me to the hospital. That might not be rational, but it’s how I feel.
Lol it’s not rational but I know how you feel. Sometimes I daydream somebody hits me and wrecks my bike and then feels so bad that they give me loads of money in hopes of me not suing them, and then I use that to buy a better bike. And then I wonder wtf is going wrong in my brain
There’s really no winning as a cyclist when most people are in cars. If you stop at all stop signs, and obey they right-of-way, people will yell at you and/or try to wave you through ahead of your turn dangerously. If you do an Idaho stop (which is the safest way to approach a stop, whether it’s legal or not), people will honk and yell at you and possibly try to run you off the road.
I used to commute by bike a lot during rush hour. If there was a lineup of cars waiting at a red-light, and I just waited in line, people in cars behind me would honk at me as if me preventing them from being one cars-length further ahead in line would somehow affect them. If I filtered forward, like I should, people would actually edge their cars over to try and block me.
I think for the most part, it’s misplaced anger from drivers who don’t want to face the fact that they are the source of danger on roads. The worst bicycle collision is way less severe than a car crash. They also really hate when bicyclists can get anywhere faster than them, which is often the case because it shows them just how much time they waste being traffic.
If it were codified like this as law everywhere, people would accept it better. The rule breaking is what pisses a lot of people off. It would be much more predictable and safer too.
Yeah, the government needs to get behind it (and tell people about it). I’ve come up to stop signs before, and been nearly run over from behind by cars that didn’t expect me to stop.
Women
Ethnicities
LGTBQ+
Drag Queens ( they are so entertaining)
Inconvenient truths
People who hang toilet paper the wong way
The French (cowards? They won more battles than anyone and have mastered the art of standing up for themselves)
Furries
Pineapple on pizza ( its good, Ill die on this hill)
Bronies
Caillou - not, that whiney snot deserves it
Marijuana
Ned Flanders
Bell bottoms
Satan ( the word in acient hebrew that we translated to Satan first appears in the book of Job, and would more accuratly be rendered as accuser of prosecutor. In the whole bible satan only goes after 10 people, and only when god tells satan to do it. Half way through satan is like 'um god? This guys like, broken now. Call it good?' But that rapscallion god was like 'no, he could still recover keep hitting him' and all that because god 'knew' Job was the most loyal and devout of his followers and his narcisism just couldnt help but make a grand display of proving it)
Bronies deserve it because they still haven’t denazified. Furries are a mixed bag with half being outright pedophiles and the rest being insanely cool people, with bronies it’s a guarantee they have at least one filly in their spank bank. But in either case if a nazi comes along trying to start shit with either i’m shutting that shit down right away because they don’t have the right to get on a high horse when they’re 20x worse.
None of the furries I am friends with tolerate Nazis
…anymore
MOST of the furries I am friends with did not ever tolerate Nazis
TBH I do know someone who has a “not checking if the character they’re posting porn of is underage” problem, and I’ve actually only seen them do it with human characters, though they have no special preference between humans and anthros.
I don’t really think the sexual violence rates in the furry community are higher than in the general community. There’s just more awareness of what consent is. I mean I could say “look at r/jailbait, straight people have a pedophile problem”, and I’d be right, but only because society has a pedophile problem.
The pinapple on pizza one is weird to me, do these people not enjoy the idea of contrasting and complimentary flavours?
Savoury + sweet is a good combo and they dont seem to have a problem with tomato on pizza if they are getting technical over ‘fruit’ being an ingredient.
It sounds awefull but tastes amazing. This was years ago when I was still moving furnature across the nation and drinking more booze than water. I wonder if I would like it sober tbh
I think it’s more that pineapple flavor is really overpowering on a pizza. And on drinks. I think people dislike ginger (to a lesser extent) for the same reason.
Drag queens are wonderful. I finally got into Drag Race (just not a reality show viewer generally), and those queens will totally tug your heart strings if you just watch, and they’re real artists too. RIP Chi Chi DeVayne.