More and more people are against giving kids internet access. Allow me to go against the grain:
If your child is neurodivergent, or LGBTQ+, or any other form of misfit, then denying them internet access is tantamount to condemning them to social isolation. It wasn’t until I got unrestricted internet access, circa 17 years of age, that I realised that actually, no, I wasn’t a fucking alien, there were hundreds of thousands of people just like me, but I didn’t know because I was stuck in this shitty small town with shitty small town people. So I spent seventeen years thinking there was something fundamentally wrong with me when in reality there was something wrong with the environment around me.
I would have had a much happier early life if I’d gotten internet earlier. Wouldn’t have spent 90% of my teens being suicidal.
I grew up in a culture where people spoke vulgarly and it was fucking fine. Just piss off with your thin skin and let the rest of us talk. Go nuzzle up to whatever sweetness you need from speech on your own, and let the rest of us be.
There’s nothing wrong with vulgarity. They were more talking about the tact with which the person was sharing their idea. There’s a difference, dickhead fuckface fart muncher
They’re not addressing anything. They’re telling the person to shut up.
I have no problem with what this person said. I found what they said valuable. I don’t think anyone should be going around telling others they can’t speak because they don’t match some standard the policer thinks should apply to speech.
Usa obsession with keeping the 2nd amendment is doing more harm than good. Your obsession with possession of fire arms in general generates problems that I don’t see in other countries, starting for the school shootings…
But no "muh rights, I must gun down anyone invading my home, we do things the muricah way here yeewah, Bald eagle screech! 🦅
Oh you must be thinking of the time they shot a student 70 years ago. No, I’m referring to events rightly called “massacres”. Not a trigger happy riot officer killing someone. I’m talking lining 20 people at a time up next to a ditch and shooting them all in the backs of the heads.
Im talking about massacres. Killing events where 20 is a rounding error.
Now I get it. Your teachers may have failed to teach you about human history. But we live in the age of informaron. You can look this stuff up.
I did. It’s how I learned about this stuff. But you, in the meantime, apparently think that
trigger happy riot officer killing someone
Is totally different and not at all a symptom of overall system. Cool. Don’t forget to keep your hands on the wheel in a traffic stop, lest an acorn falls.
So by reaching back to May I was able to find a massacre, in a country with a civilian weapons ban, five times larger than the on you found by reaching back to 1985, in a country with an armed populace.
Do you suppose they dropped bombs on these civilians?
So far thar’s two data points. Shall we continue one for one comparing the massacres of unarmed populations to those of armed populations?
Order of operations is important. Yes, if we got rid of all the guns then gun violence would stop being a problem. There’s a whole discussion that could be had about sensible gun regulations that is beyond the scope of this comment. Reform on the matter is necessary.
However, that ‘order of operations’ thing I mentioned: I’ll give up my guns when the fascists give up theirs, and not a day earlier.
That Amerikans don’t deserve any special consideration, and in fact, deserve a Century of Humiliation where the odious “please collaborate in our genocide so the cryptofascist oligarchy Democracy™ that anglo-saxon, protestant-descended magnates and a small fraction of uplifted misleaders we All™ enjoy will be saved!” brainworm is concerned.
Yes. My principles do matter to me more than you do at this point if you’re going to look me in the face and tell me I have to support a genocider, all so you (or whatever minority you’re about to only care about long enough to use as a cudgel) can remain comfortable.
I suspect your definition of genocide differs from the legal one, because the US hasn't supported a genocide since we did native Americans dirty. The term had not yet been coined then.
Even if the international courts don’t rule that Israel is committing genocide, that will necessarily have been influenced by the United States’s close ties to Israel, so that they haven’t yet said whether it is or isn’t genocide is irrelevant. According to the evidence we have, it is.
Others, like historian Gary Anderson, contend that genocide does not accurately characterize any aspect of American history, suggesting instead that ethnic cleansing is a more appropriate term.
I’ve seen that same statement by people opposed to the use of the word “genocide” when talking about Israel’s genocide of Palestine, and it’s just as credible there as when “historian Gary Anderson” said it. At best, such a stance is pedantic; at worst, it supports Israel’s genocide by denying and enabling it.
Gun laws are ineffective. There is zero correlation between gun deaths and strictness of gun laws. Despite limits and bans of short barreled rifles, “assault weapons”, machine guns, etc, gun deaths have continually increased.
Gun bans are only effective where there already isn’t violence, at which point it’s redundant.
I believe the culprits behind widespread American violence are high rates of youth delinquency and gang related criminal activity.
Its legacy as this place potentially and magically fulfilling the hopes of having the answers to one’s questions far exceeds reasonability, especially given the ordinariness of its circumstances/contents, and combine that with the fact that what they were known for is performing human experimentation on live prisoners, all without the ability to understand these experiments enough to start forming a unified concept of medicine around it, since this is Ancient Greece/Egypt we’re talking about.
or the one I got a temp ban at the other place for “promoting violence”: if there’s a threat to your wellbeing and you have to protect your dog, you chose the wrong dog and any harm that comes to you is your own fault.
You can have your anxiety dog, but I feel safer with my security guard dog. You’re dead because you’re dumb.
Fediverse is not for everyone and I’d rather not have fediverse go mainstream, and if it does I’d rather have normies use normie instances like lemmy.world and mastodon.social because that way you can filter them out if you don’t like them.
Human beings are social animals. The only way that other people wouldn’t be able to hurt me non-physically is if I were to cut myself off from my humanity.
It’s actually pretty simple (but not easy at all)… You start actually believing that other people can’t hurt you. That is pretty much all there is to it. (Not quite, will explain later).
You simply don’t give that power to people. I love my spouse. But my spouse cheats on me. Now I could be hurt by the betrayal… But why? What is the benefit for me? I don’t need to feel hurt to know that my spouse is not worth keeping around, to be my spouse anymore.
If other people do something bad to me, that is not on me, it’s their problem. They’re evil/unaware/selfish. It’s no reflection on the quality of person I am. Thus when someone does something bad to me, it’s honestly just good to know. I can decide how bad I think it is and react accordingly. But feeling hurt by it is not really required in that process.
As I said at the beginning, “not quite”, there are a whole bunch of other beliefs attached to/required by this. For example, I believe that everything is temporary, or at least that the chance of something permanent (really, temporary until end of life) being low. I don’t expect to be together with my spouse to the end of time - if it happens though, I have nothing against it. I believe that change is fine, and I look forward to it: If my spouse cheats on me, I can experience no partner for a while or forever, or experience looking for a new one, both things are fine with me. And so on. Basically all my beliefs are set up in a way that I’m fine with whatever happens.
(The only exception is extreme, or lasting physical harm and death. I can’t experience anything “normally” anymore when these happen to me. Some disabilities could be fine, but I probably have a limit of how much I could be affected. Losing all movement in all my limbs could be fine, but I’m not sure. Losing an arm or a leg or hearing or similar severeness I could probably be fine with.)
Now the thing is, changing your entire belief system to be fine with pretty much anything is not something people are either willing or able to do. I did it though and think that theoretically everyone can do it.
What do you mean, like insults or if someone really insults you with a phobic term?
Unless you annoy or anger the person first, then sure I’d get it if they were big an asshole. But if it’s a retort, then maybe don’t start insult wars you can’t win.