If your spouse was in a terrible accident during a power outage and you had to construct an alternative power source to power their life support - how would you do it?
What’s really important is that it’s impossible not to be a bad person and a billionaire. I like her music but being a billionaire means that she is an enemy of society. Period
Yeah, no. Billionaires suck, including if they inherited the money (e: and then kept it to themselves; thanks kofe!). But being raised by shit heads does not mean you’re destined to become a shit head.
You’re contradicting yourself. If billionaires are shit heads, why does inheriting it inherently make you one? I agree with the other poster that keeping it all is the part that makes it shitty
There’s no moral reason to have that much money. If you earned $2500 a day (about a million dollars a year) it would take you just under 1200 years to earn a billion dollars. I personally believe you should earn more if you work harder than others but there’s simply no way anyone could work hard enough to deserve more than anyone should make in 15 lifetimes. If you are lucky enough to get that amount of money there’s no moral reason to keep it all.
Now think about how Bezos is worth 192.4 billion dollars. Hopefully that helps folks understand the problem. And by problem, I mean the largest threat we are facing to human existence. Every other issue we’re having stems from the fact that billionaires exist.
Say you work on a team with, say 50 people. Everyone works hard to generate money, but you’re the star of the show, so naturally you get to keep a little more of that money than everyone else. The question is, how much? Is it morally questionable to make double what everyone else does? What about 10x? What if you keep half for yourself, meaning those 49 other people combined make the same as you? Not enough? What about 100x as much as everyone else? 1000x?
Taylor Swift’s salary is about 1,700x the average in the music industry. People on her team are likely struggling to make ends meet or pay for hospital bills or support a family. Meanwhile, Taylor Swift is hoarding money like a fucking dragon.
It’s not really a problem that can be solved though. Should Taylor Swift’s team earn 2x more than Kanye’s? They possibly already earn above average what one usually would by supporting someone else.
She is obviously not going to refuse what people are willing to pay for her. Earnings for world famous musicians and actors always has and will be ridiculous.
The tax rate on the ultra-wealthy has decreased tremendously since the 70s. By making billionaires pay their fair share and closing tax loopholes, we can make huge improvements to wealth inequality and fund social programs that help people who need it most.
Looking at your comments I can see you’re just a troll but if actual humans are reading this: there are exactly zero moral billionaires. It is not possible to be a billionaire and be a good person at the same time. You do not have to know what’s in their heart or whatever the fuck this idiot is trying to say. You can’t earn that kind of money without hurting and exploiting people and if you keep that amount of money you are actively harming society. End of story.
Lmao and the people hoarding incalculable wealth that they’ll never ever be able to spend in multiple lifetimes are for sure helping us progress as a species.
I think they’re just keeping up the banter. As in, humourously acting like they don’t get your point just to keep the joke going (“So what if you’re a girl? That’s clearly you rn, just replace them with a short girl. Or are you saying girls cannot study the blade?”). Supporting that idea is the fact that “Study the blade” is a relatively well known internet meme at this point.
But I’m just an unrelated individual inserting myself into a random conversation with little reason, trying to interpret another person’s comment on a shitposting community.
This entire thread makes me so sad. I didn’t expect this level of discrimination here on lemmy. I was even told this was the good part of the internet…
Even the #1 rule of this instance is about being respectful, but somehow, threads like this exist and are highly upvoted, with comments endorsing them.
I saw some of the comments you received on here, and I’m sorry for you.
Thanks. I’m disappointed too. I would have thought the whole notion of Rule 30 (“There are no women on the Internet”) was dead by now. Clearly I am wrong.
I guess I should have known better than to expect some people to be anything less than immature children.
It depends wildly, but 170cm might be short in the US, especially for some age groups since 175cm seems to be the average for everyone over 20.
From 2015–2018, the average height for males in the United States ages 20 and over was 69 inches (175cm)
For Finland, for males 18+ that average is 177cm. You can be your ass I’m short at 169cm. And you do not want to go “well, in the Philippines I would be above average” lol
Well see that’s why I didn’t go by just US statistics. That link I cited states US statistics as well as worldwide. It would be ignorant of me to make a species-wide claim by using a dataset that only includes 5% of the world population, after all. :)
Could also be the UK, to be fair. The inch units may be different, but both nations use the International Foot.
In any case, I don’t really see the region as being relevant; the meme may be limited to a particular region, but I was objecting more to the whole notion of that stereotype. Which is the same regardless of the unit used.
But even the UK is much taller than the global average and you’d be short at 170cm.
In any case, I don’t really see the region as being relevant; the meme may be limited to a particular region, but I was objecting more to the whole notion of that stereotype. Which is the same regardless of the unit used.
How tall or short you’re considered is dependant on that region. People are comparing you to the people around you, not to global average.
People are comparing based on incomplete data. It may be short for one country, but there are humans in other countries too. If those countries population were all shorter than the other, would that make them short? No, it would simply adjust what qualifies as normal.
For a species-wide judgment one needs a species-wide dataset.
Normality is what you have around you. That’s the context people compare things in, usually. Someone short in the UK might be average elsewhere, but when people say “I’m short” or “he’s tall”, it’s with an unsaid for what I typically see around me implied there.
I fully understand that. I’m not saying people don’t do that; I’m merely saying that it is dumb as it’s an inherently incomplete dataset and therefore not a reliable source of measurement. In other words, I’m talking about what’s objectively normal, not what’s subjectively normal.
Do people do that? Of course they do; I’m a dumbass, not an idiot. But I also don’t like it, and this is why.
You know, I don’t see the problem here. Though the language is currently problematic, it’s a valid message.
I disagree with the language being problematic, since the dictionary definition of “retard” is literally to be held back or to hold back. Persons who are mentally held back are by definition being mentally retarded. It’s a valid clinical term.
It really is a shame that “retarded” became a word of disparagement and slang for those who are stupid. A word which is widely regarded as insulting more than anything else.
The other thing that saddens me is that while we have associations for people who are clearly and significantly mentally handicapped, when it comes to simple mental health for everyone else, it’s often regarded as a sign of weakness. Any attempt to seek help for any mental issues is generally looked down upon. There’s a large number of people who not only would benefit from mental health services but need them to lead fulfilling lives. So many people struggle with disorders that aren’t as obvious and have no facilities to seek help or even a diagnosis to understand themselves; at least not without significant personal resources at their disposal, which most lack.
That whole side of humanity generally just needs a small push to get to their potential, and they are often denied a chance to get that push. Either from economic barriers, or social stigma, or other reasons. We actively harm the potential of the race, in my opinion, by allowing those people to continue to struggle with disorders they don’t understand that may be able to be solved with a fairly simple prescription, or changes in their behaviors.
Given how massive this issue is and how easily it could be solved (by providing very basic mental health services to everyone who needs them), I’m continually disappointed in humanity as a whole that this is allowed to continue. This message, no matter what Barbara might say, or want to have happen with this message, it is one that should be repeated, perhaps with more modern terms, and such institutions as what is promoted here, should be maintained. There’s no shame in needing help; regardless if you are someone with a mental disorder, or full mental disability, those services should be made available.
As far as it becoming a word of disparagement and slang for those who are stupid - thats basically what constantly happens. A new word comes out and eventually it is used to insult people and then another new word starts being used.
“Autism” seems to be the new accepted term to bastardize into a pejorative, but we haven’t reached the point where the scientific community has to abandon it yet.
Though the language is currently problematic, it’s a valid message.
Back in the 80s, many people lamented how the word gay had been “ruined” for them.
From that time, there was a sketch by Toronto’s comedy troupe The Kids In The Hall of a little old lady lamenting how the word f-gg#t had been ruined for her. Back in her day, a f-gg#t was a bundle of dry sticks, “on cold winter nights we’d huddle by the fireplace and we’d throw another f-gg#t in the fire”, she says with a sigh.
Then she goes on to say how she used to like fisting - calls it a needlepoint technique - until her friends told her what that word meant now.
She speculates that the word rambler might now mean something filthy, too. All those lovely old words, now tucked away, can’t use them anymore.
EDIT: I am using a certain word in historical context here, got censored, so I edited it to see if it now flies under the bots’ radar.
The way I see it is if a word causes harm to people who mean no harm themselves, then we don’t need to use that word in any contexts other than historical. Just like how the use of the words ******, and ******, and my goodness even the word ********* have fallen out of use, rightfully so.
For me, offense is in the listeners mind. Words are simply words. Taking offense to such things is a personal choice. You can choose to be offended or not.
I don’t mean to imply that the victims of bullying or racism or whatever are to blame for their own offense, certainly the words being used as insults is entirely the fault of those that use them in that manner, but it does require that the terms are taken in that same context - as an insult. One term that I feel has had this treatment and been almost turned around by society is the word “gay”. It’s fallen so far out of fashion to use “gay” as a form of insult that in general use, calling someone “gay” isn’t really all that insulting. It’s more offensive to try to use that as an insult than it is precieved as an insult to the listener. Anyone trying to offend with that word is usually seen as someone who is ignorant at best. I have been the victim of bullying in my youth and I have been called gay on several occasions. I am not gay, nor any other classification of LGBTQ+; I support equal rights for everyone including and especially the LGBTQ+ community members. I’m great described as an ally of the group.
The fact is, several previously offensive terms in this same vein, have been taken back by the communities that were one offended at the use. Sometimes the term becomes endearing more than any kind of offensive. Among the African community we see this with “the N word”. Though that’s an internal community use, and not more generalized like gay has become.
I don’t think that my opinions on whether words are or should be offensive changes anything; I have no issues avoiding these problematic words to benefit my fellow humans, and make them more comfortable in what I’m trying to say. Avoiding even the implication that I’m being offensive in my terminology. I feel that restricting my use (or rather eliminating it) of certain words to benefit others, is a small price to pay to help my fellow humans. So small in fact that it goes almost completely unnoticed; and that’s fine. I don’t need nor want recognition for anything I’m doing for the benefit of others. I feel as though it’s my duty to ensure that I am correctly understood, and that no offense is taken when no offense is intended; furthermore, I never intend offense, since there’s never a good enough reason to simply disparage people whom I don’t know, and usually good reasons not to disparage people I know. So to me, even the risk of someone taking offense at something I say is far too much of a risk for me to even say the words that they will find offensive.
“So unto others as you would have them do unto you” - one of the few things I live by. I wish to be treated with respect and dignity, so I will treat others with the respect and dignity I hope that they will give me. Though this statement is most frequently referenced by religion, specifically Christian religions, I am not religious, but the statement is nevertheless valid and something I try to adhere to.
The main factor that saddens me is that my friends and fellow humans allow their emotions to be dictated by the use of these offensive terms by ignorant and uncaring people. The most important thing to me of everything I’ve said is the underlying implication that by getting angry at the use of a word by someone who doesn’t respect you enough to avoid it, gives them control over you and your emotions. The anger is justified, and I’m not going to say, nor imply its wrong to be upset, your feelings are valid; but giving someone else control over you for using a word? It seems like you’re giving bigots and assholes far too much power. They don’t deserve it and they certainly don’t deserve your attention, or time… And they certainly don’t deserve to have any control over you at all. You deserve better than that from them, and from yourself.
But, far be it for me to tell anyone how to think or how to live. I will do my best out here, and I hope that makes a difference to those around me. I hope that others do the same and collectively, we can eliminate such offense towards individuals at the mere utterance of such words, and they’ll fall from favor as “gay” already has done.
I love all of you, no matter what you believe, who you are, or any other factor that might divide us. I wish you all the very best and all the happiness in the world.
For me, offense is in the listeners mind. Words are simply words. Taking offense to such things is a personal choice. You can choose to be offended or not.
So the N-word is not offensive? Do you use it freely?
No. Obviously, as I stated later in my post, I refrain from using words that are taken as offensive in an effort to make my fellow humans more comfortable. I personally don’t have any issue with any word. I refuse to allow someone to have that much control over my emotional state by using a word.
I don’t understand why anyone would want to give someone else control over their person simply because they’re an ignorant bigot who has no issue using such a word in an offensive way.
I do my best to give all of my fellow people (friends, co-workers and even strangers) respect. At least enough respect not to stoop to simple character attacks using historically demeaning language. If I have a problem with someone, that shouldn’t imply that they are somehow less than me, they are simply the center point of the issue I’m having, and I shouldn’t resort to trying to insult them based on something as trivial as their race, culture, religion, creed, or anything else that’s so generalized.
It reminds me of the xkcd comic about double standards: in the first pane it shows two people, presumably men, both standing at a blackboard or similar doing math, and the first is saying to the second “wow, you suck at math”. In the second pane, it’s presumably a man and a woman in the exact same scenario, but in this case, the man is saying to the woman “wow, women suck at math”.
The difference is clear: in the first scenario, they’re addressing the individual, in the second, they’re referring to an entire group based on a single characteristic of that individual. That kind of broad generalization of an individual based on a single factor, whether it is race, gender, religion, etc… Is the core of the issue for me. If I have an issue with someone, or even multiple someone’s of a particular race, gender, class, etc… I make active efforts to not make judgements of all people of that particular race/gender/whatever, based on this small sample.
I’ve had friends of various races, gender identities, religions, etc, who are very rational, intelligent, good natured, etc. I’ve also known people of pretty much every class, gender, race, religion, etc, who are utterly infuriating or annoying to no end for various reasons. For me, it’s not a reflection on that race/gender/whatever, but rather a reflection on that individual. While they may be a particular gender, race, religion, etc… They do not represent every person who is in that race/religion/gender/etc. I’ve noticed there are trends in behavior among people of similar cultures… Where a culture is usually consisting of people with similar race, National origin, religion, etc, but those trends do not and cannot inform my judgement of a person. Many races, religions, etc, belong to multiple cultures, and there are many examples of people from every culture that do not have the same ideologies, religion, or even personality traits, of their root culture, so again, this does not and cannot inform my thoughts about any one individual.
While similarities exist between people of similar or the same culture, each individual is, and must be, treated as an individual because every other system of determining the treatment of an individual, either socially or personally, is incomplete at best, and wildly inaccurate at worst.
Bringing it back to the point. I have no personal issue with any word that may or may not be considered offensive, either to me or others. Taking offense is an entirely personal matter wholly existing in the mind of the listener. As a matter of respect for my fellow person, I refrain from uttering such words that may cause unintentional offense to people as a matter of respect for those people. Furthermore, I respect all individuals I interact with at least enough to not desire to cause offense, especially regarding traits they cannot otherwise change, such as national heritage, race, gender, etc.
I would not personally have any issues using words that are currently considered offensive, if the groups that could be offended by those words were to stand up and say that the word will not be taken offensively.
The N-word specifically, appears to have it’s etymology rooted in Spanish, where the word for the color black is literally “Negro”. I feel that the word is a bastardized anglo mishearing of Negro, by slave owners, back when that was a thing; and as such, it has become inexorably tied to the concept of owning people, meanwhile the dictionary defines the N-word as literally a dark-skinned person (and correctly notes that it is a contemptuous term for such a person).
Words change meaning over time, as I’m sure the N-word first appeared in the dictionary as a dark skinned slave or something equally dehumanizing. The term has already evolved to simply be a dark-skinned person (contemptuous), and may evolve further to any number of potential future definitions.
If such a time arises that the word is no longer seen as offensive to the dark-skinned community, regardless of the speaker, then I would have no problem using the term in whatever context is appropriate for the new definition. If that context is that it should never be used, as it is now, then I will never use it. Full stop.
I have to much respect for people of all races, to use terms which would demean any race.
I still don’t have a problem with it personally. I am also not a dark-skinned person. I maintain that my fellow humans should not allow the utterance of such a word to have any sway on their emotions. Don’t give someone else control over you because they don’t respect you enough that they’ll use such offensive words. Don’t give them that control. They’re worthless humans.
I would not personally have any issues using words that are currently considered offensive, if the groups that could be offended by those words were to stand up and say that the word will not be taken offensively.
Sorry… you want the intellectually disabled to explain why something you say upsets them?
You do understand the concept of intellectual disability, right?
Of course I do. These statements are more broadly applicable. Specifically in the context of that reply, I was being asked about the “N-word”.
Additionally, it’s rather judgemental of you to assume that the intellectually disabled are incapable of enough comprehension that they can understand when something has offended them.
People who fit the description of intellectual disability are wildly varied in what constitutes their disability. Sure, some of them are nonverbal, some may be in a borderline vegetative state. Those are extremes and shouldn’t imply that all people with intellectual disabilities are incapable of understanding or verbalizing their feelings.
Bluntly, if someone is so intellectually disabled that they are unable to express, in some way, shape, or form, that a statement has either offended them, or that a statement does not offend them, then I would argue that the probability that they understand the potentially offensive statement well enough to have an opinion on it, is extremely remote. Thus, their opinion, which cannot be ascertained either way, is not relevant to the discussion.
What’s amazing to me is that you seem to be trying so very hard to find flaws in my argument and get me upset or something, and yet, even as I’m writing this, and recognizing that your statements are most likely just an attempt to troll me… I am stoic and entirely calm.
Think what you will of me. I could not possibly care any less than I already do. This entire discussion has been cathartic. I rarely get to voice my opinions on such things, since those that know me already know what my opinions are on this topic; most of the general population won’t sit and listen to a reasonable argument or have a productive discussion on such “hot button” topics.
So I want to say thank you for the discussion. I truly appreciate the opportunity to re-examine the issue. So far, I have heard no compelling argument to change my outlook or opinion on this issue, and I sincerely hope that at some point someone will read this and realize that they’re giving someone power over them with words, and change how they see such offensive language. If even one person has that moment of realization, then all the effort and time I’ve spent talking about this, has been time well spent.
I hope you, and everyone who reads this, now or in the future, have a very pleasant day.
Additionally, it’s rather judgemental of you to assume that the intellectually disabled are incapable of enough comprehension that they can understand when something has offended them.
I’m not assuming that at all. You’re assuming the ones who are capable enough haven’t stood up and said to stop using that word.
The statements in context are referring to a potential future time when they say that it’s not offensive. I made no statements about what has, or has not been said currently by those groups. I only acknowledged that currently the word is considered offensive.
I recognized in my original reply that the wording of the picture in the OP is problematic. Though it carries a decent enough message, the wording would be considered offensive by today’s standards.
I agree 100%, if I may add: Society has also little place for “stupid” people. I mean people with a smaller IQ but who are not special needs. I have a friends who really, with all the best of support, is just not smart. Who has barely managed to finish school and couldn’t understand stuff in their vocational training (I live in Germany, that’s the typical route to go). She is working in a cafeteria now, serving food. She has this job for years and years now, she’s well adapted there. It’s not a special needs job, it is just the kind of job you get if you don’t have a (vocational) degree to show for.
And there is no actual problem with that. She has friends and a husband and a fulfilling life. She’s happy. She does her job well. You can argue that school has failed her but the truth is no matter what you do, she’d never become a lawyer or an accountant. That’s just not in the cards for her. And that’s ok. But what’s not is that she is struggling with money. Because this is where society fails her. Assuming that you can always do better, have a “higher” job, if you just try hard enough. Like, no. We all have limitations. I couldn’t be a doctor because I faint when someone tells me about injuries. That’s ok, too. She won’t have a career or manage the canteen, she’s content, she doesn’t want that either, but she will probably have to work until she dies because her retirement won’t be enough. This isn’t fair.
I’ve seen this with tutoring school children too. Some kids just won’t make it to university and some won’t even finish school. Or they will but that’s just it then. And the sad part is not that they won’t have an amazing education but that despite holding down a job they will just never be able to make it to a point in which they will not struggle financially.
I agree, there will always be differences in intellectual capacity. It’s not a problem as people are needed of every capacity for every type of job to do the work. There’s nothing wrong with someone being of low IQ and taking a job they’re capable of fully grasping. Often, I find that people in positions that suit them often do better at those jobs than people ill suited to their position.
For me it’s really not about how smart you are or what you’re intellectually capable of, it’s about how well you do at the job you have. Knowing the nuances of that position and how to handle situations in the context of the job, which makes you a valuable member of society.
It is shameful that people of low IQ are used as an offending stereotype for society as a whole. Low IQ doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme of things; especially when taken in context with someone’s utility to society. Some of the most important and helpful people are those with limited intellectual capacity, or holding jobs well suited to people with limited IQ. As an extreme example, say someone who is low IQ works on a farm growing food. That farmer does a good job because they’re all suited to the kind of work they do. This allows more intellectually capable people pursue advancements that can benefit everyone including the farmer. Whether designing vehicles or electronics/computers, or even keeping complex systems running… Everyone is important. People of all IQs and walks of life and everything.
I would argue that people of low IQ are the bedrock of modern society. The people who handle the day to day service needs of the general population. They provide, and maintain the framework in which we all live. Without them, or someone to do those jobs, I believe that society would collapse.
Of course, I continue to believe that everyone of all walks of life should continue to make efforts to improve upon themselves; gain more knowledge and “move up in the world” as they are capable… But no matter what, we still need people who will grow, cook and serve food. We still need people to stock shelves and drive trucks. We still need people to do so much of the work that makes our lives possible at all. Not everyone can be an Einstein. While the notable inventors and thinkers get their names in history books, that progress is built on the backs of hundreds or thousands of “menial labor” workers that helped get us to the point where people of high IQ can spend their lives working on these problems and finding solutions the rest of us couldn’t possibly have thought of.
We’re all a part of the society in which we live, if we’re doing our best to contribute to that society and provide meaningful progress to future generations, then everyone is important. Not just those with fame and notoriety in the history books.
It really is a shame that “retarded” became a word of disparagement and slang for those who are stupid. A word which is widely regarded as insulting more than anything else.
“Moron” was literally something doctors used to describe certain patients once too. Any clinical term used to describe someone of low intelligence (putting aside the difficulties in making that determination in any universal sense) will inevitably be used as a pejorative/insult. It can’t be stopped.
Yep. In the 90s when I grew up, the politically correct term was “mentally challenged”, which eventually started being used as an insult. The current term is “special needs” and already I’ve seen it used as an insult.
The word, Autistic, is just beginning this journey. I’ve seen people use that as an insult, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it is considered antiquated and insulting by the time I am old.
If you use some sandpaper you can get them to align nicely. Star woth higher grits and work down, first do some vertical passes, then horizontal. Thank me later
I used to chuckle when the alphabetical order bot on reddit would reply to someone’s extremely dark comment with “Would you look at that? All the words in your comment are in alphabetical order!”
I guess 1. it might only cover a fraction of comments so if you do it unintentionally and it doesn’t work you don’t notice so that’s a big bias 2. I didn’t try very often so it isn’t statistically significant 3. when I tried it often was in direct or indirect response to the bot so there might be a filter on the bot’s side.
And I sound like I tried more than once, I’m not even sure but surely at least once and at the very most thrice
Sure, she may have infantalized him to an embarrassing degree, but at least she posted it online so the entire world can see how unhealthy their marriage is and how transactional their sex live is.
I think there’s something like 43/500ths of a Bigole Hertz to a regular Hertz; but that’s if you’re using English Bigoles. I think it’s 43.9/500ths for a US Bigole.
All metric unit prefixes are possible. Like femtohertz, picohertz, centihertz, decihertz, decahertz, hectohertz, petahertz, zettahertz. Not sure if they are used often.
Well Hz is a frequency per second. It doesn’t make much sense to use them for low frequency things but it’s still possible. Just most things that happen less than once per second are usually described in units like seconds, hours and more.
No one uses millihertz and neither meterhertz. If you want to do it correctly the first one would be acceptable for milli as scale. The second one would need to be written as m • Hz.
By convention, compound SI units (e.g. N•m) are separated by a space or multiplication dot and are not just smashed together. The lack of such a separator in the above example implies the “milli” prefix.
It does amaze me how many people I’ve met who have a vicious hatred towards speed cameras. Especially interesting e: in a country where people have so much respect for the police.
We don’t like the idea a private company is enforcing laws not for safety but for profit. Especially when things like shortening of yellow light time and cameras that don’t properly report speed. It’s horseshit.
In the USA, many or most speed cameras are owned and operated not by the local police or city, but by a private company that keeps some percent of the fines they give out.
They are contracted by the city, country, or other authority. They are not randomly placed or operated without permission.
Yeah. Even in the US many municipalities outsource almost the entire ticketing process to the company selling the cameras, and the company collects a (usually outsized) percentage of the fees. So the company has the incentive to use whatever shady tactics to increase ticketing infraction events. This could be by changing the camera angle slightly to falsely get plates from yellow throughers or sometimes they change light timing itself to increase ticketing events…
I would just assumed because they are using the same Swedish company (Sensys Gatso) that does profit sharing agreements with municipalities in the US, that the agreement is the same.
I can’t seem to find the finnish contract award details, so I can’t confirm that they are. I am thinking now, that their might be a chance that they aren’t, given how extreme finnish traffic violation costs can be (% of salary).
It seems like a fairly risky assumption to make just from you having it work like that in the US.
As a side note, that % thing (day fines) don’t cover all speeding tickets, since they’re considered so minor. It’s the bigger offenses (of speed limits and in general) that are covered. So it actually covers other stuff too, not just speeding.
Here’s a pic showing the amounts. It has the speed limit, how much over the limit you were and how much you end up paying as a fine. Bottom one is “regardless of the limit” and “over 20 km/h”, so whenever you go over by over 20 km/h, you pay “day fines”.
So what’s the point? How does this not make it more equitable to adjust it by income from there? That’s still extremely more equitable than our wildly unjust system that’s only designed to punish the poor.
Edit: Also, that’s totally wrong. If I convert euros to USD, then that’s ~$135, which is way less than an average speeding ticket in the US. Last one I had was more than $200, and that was in 2010. You’re wrong.
I’m in the lower income bracket, and I haven’t had one that low since the 90s. That figure must be skewed by places like Nowhereville where the police are so corrupt that they issue $10 tickets to family members or something, because $150 is not a realistic figure for most people. I bet if we looked into that, we’d find some really creative methodology.
It’s only % of salary (day fines) for more severe offenses, in this case for really speeding. Normal speeding tickets are just a set sum.
Here’s a pic showing the amounts. It has the speed limit, how much over the limit you were and how much you end up paying as a fine. Bottom one is “regardless of the limit” and “over 20 km/h”, so whenever you go over by over 20 km/h, you pay “day fines”.
The real problem is that people want to argue technicalities that deflect from the main point. For people who aren’t paying attention, they might come across this and think, “Oh, well I guess the US system isn’t so unjust after all.”
The Finnish system is probably inequitable, too! But it’s objectively not as inequitable as the US system, at least not where traffic fines are concerned. There’s nuance.
It’s not the local government putting them up, it’s a private company who is in charge and keeps at least half the revenue. Plus when their location is known and they get less effective the same company will try other things like altering yellow light time length to keep profits up.
Do you have a link explaining this? I searched for “poliisi valvontakamera” and “poliisi nopeuskamera asennus” and didn’t find stuff about who puts them up and whatnot or about the income sharing. I have read articles about how they’re a nice source of income for the state but no mention of the companies involved.
Us Nords are socialist enough to keep a tight leash on capitalism. Less and less of course, but capitalism doesn’t define us, the way it defines basically the rest of the world.
Capitalism wreaks a different amount of havoc on societies depending on any number of variables, mostly those which have to do with controlling capitalism.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.