Coulda woulda shoulda whatever, thats not reality. People break rules and punishments aren't effective at stopping them. So come up with an effective way of stopping it without ruining people's lives or shut the fuck up. No one deserves their life ruined over speeding, and if you think they do then I hope you get to experience the other end of the stick.
Also L+ratio
And if you were smart enough to use critical thinking and follow your logic to its inevitable conclusion, you'd see how that would just send people into cycles perpetually keeping them in prison and never being able to reform or reintigrate into society all over a speeding ticket. But since you aren't, let me walk you through it.
John gets a in trouble for speeding. Maybe they give him a ticket he cant afford or maybe they just take his car away. Either way it doesnt matter, it just speeds up the cycle so lets go fast and say he loses the car. He now lacks a car so I hope his town has good public transportation! Oops it doesn't, guess he loses his job because he cant get there on time. Now John is houseless. We all know how the houseless are treated so lets just skip to John going to prison. Lets say a year or so later he gets out. Now he will have an even harder time finding a job because he has a criminal record AND is houseless. On and on.
Now since we both understand the cycle I imagine you still think his car should be taken away but simply because youre a hateful and vengeful person who doesnt care about actually stopping crime, but just want to see people who do something wrong get punished (whether or not the punishment will have unintended consequences that cause the punishment to be way more severe than the crime).
This type of argument always pisses me off. "Oh it wont work on a country scale." Why the fuck does it need to? The governments we have doesnt work on a country scale, thats why they are always failing. Its why you have resistance movements like in Basque, Chechnya, Kurdistan, Quebec, Chiapas, Sicily, literally anywhere in the Middle East and Africa, and many many more. They require authority and oppression to keep their huge populations under their control, populations that are often times very different and diverse. Anarchism works because it is not trying to make people thousands of miles apart live under the same system. Thats the whole fucking point of free association.
Youre right, its just so simple! Why hasnt anyone else thought of this? Cause its so simple that it couldnt be that people have thought of it already and it failed. Its almost like its too good to be true!
Your argument is applicable for literally any ideology. Its a fucking stupid argument because every ideology can be handwaved away with "works good on paper, but not with people." Except all of them except anarchism use positions of power to correct that problem. Problem is, positions of power are filled by people. Flawed, nuanced, corruptible people. Even when those positions are occupied by good people, power is corrupting and will quickly make otherwise good people make bad decisions that affect thousands if not millions of people. Yeah you could pass all those reforms you suggest, but you still have those seats of power. Someone (like Trump) can and will get in there and get rid of those reforms, and turn your social-democracy into a fascist dictatorship.
People tend to argue whether or not humans are naturally rational and good. Either way power is not the solution. If people are naturally good and rational, positions of power are unnecessary. If people are naturally selfish and irrational then why the fuck would you give them positions of power?
Ya know, as someone who knows a lot of people who didnt and dont vote, a lot of those people I know are also street medics, community defense organizers, mutual aid activists, houseless outreach volunteers. So kindly shut the fuck up cause I've seen just as many people stop after voting and toss their hands up in the air claiming they did their part, meanwhile anarchist have been out in the streets providing direct aid, support, and are out organizing to protect people. I have also seen people who voted and didnt stop there, and are out there with those anarchists, third party voters, etc. So maybe quit throwing around generalizations, cause if you're gonna say all non-voters have any blame I'm gonna turn around and say what the fuck are you doing? If you're doing shit? Good, don't tell me, keep yourself safe by keeping your actions private. If you ain't doing shit the shut the fuck up, and quit projecting.
A quick check on Merriam Webster dictionary says otherwise
Aesthetic in this case is an adjective not a noun. Aesthetic pinboard means the pinboard's purpose is visual. Basically style over substance (not in a negative way)
Literally a quick google search of the definition of "aesthetic" would have saved you the embarassment.
"Adjective: 1. concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty."
I feel it makes some sense honestly. The AI bubble I do think will cause a recession, and with the current climate in the US I do not think a major recession will be helpful if elites want to put out the fire. I thinknit could be possible that enough unrest could cause them to sacrifice Altman to try to reduce unrest.
But that is assuming its enough to drive people to put enough pressure.
What about Grave of the Fireflies?
The only thing stopping me from going to GOG now is just being able to play with friends and the steam workshop. I think I'll start getting my single player games that dont have steam workshop on GOG now
Its also just wrong. Like causing pain does not cause empathy or sympathy, it causes cognitive dissonance. We know harming things is wrong, we are harming something and we thus experience a conflict. You can either resolve this conflict by changing your behavior (stop harming others) or changing your beliefs (stop believing others feel pain, or stop believing they are worthy of empathy). The third option (which is quite often the case) is cognitive dissonance, where you ignore confronting the conflict between these two contradicting beliefs (the belief eating meat is fine, and the belief harming others is unethical). Like bro mustve failed intro to psychology
Yeah I have this same issue. Just started meds for ADHD and so still trying to find the right med and dose. I havent tried a new med, just been slowly increasing the dose. More often than not it doesn't help, but sometimes it does. They keep saying its a dose thing, but I'm beginning to think its the med itself. I'm on dexmethylphenidate (or however its spelt).
I really like the middle one
Fixed, now you get "couldn't've" and "to've"
Permanently Deleted
My take is he's a spicy liberal and so I don't trust him and I don't consider him a radical leftist in any meaningful way. He's a sanitization of leftism, palatable to progressive democrats. Its nice that he seems able to get people into more radical leftist ideals, but that is all the credit I would give him. He's like a gateway into radical left politics, but thats about it.
My take is a meme is a humorous repeated and shared idea/joke/schema/etc. Screenshots fall under this for me, espcially if the text is in reference to more conventional memes. This is because I count copypastas as memes, which makes it hard to differentiate a copypasta from social media screenshots and such. I would consider screenshots from social medias to be a low effort meme, but a meme nontheless.
My take is we should allow it, but soft moderate it by constructively and politely suggesting other communities that might fit the content better. This would ideally spread more awareness and engagement in other more niche communities, allow people to still post memes in good faith here, and provide a way for people to help softly moderate without ruining other people's fun.
If this was practiced though, I feel there should be a rule that community suggestions should not be spammed in a post. This is to prevent the comments from devolving into brigading and spam.
I agree with you largely. Although I don't think people downvote for the cognitive dissonance, at least thats not the reason I do. I live in a very rural state, and even the most industrialized cities here have dog shit public transportation and are not bike-able or walkable. I also do not want to live in a city, so I really have no options but to have a car. Personally, when I hear people say "get rid of cars" it feels very privileged because it comes off as a very blanket solution that is really only achievable in cities and other urbanized environments. Otherwise I do largely agree with boosting public transportation and other non-car centric solutions, and obviously I definitely agree with completely replacing the justice system around one of rehabilitation and addressing problems that cause crime in the first place.