Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)L
Posts
0
Comments
143
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • The Pitt

    Slow Horses

    IT: Welcome to Derry

    The Expanse

    Murderbot

    Dept Q

    And that's just a handful of (mostly) recent shows off the top of my head.

    But if you want more targeted recommendations, tell us what types of shows or genres you're most interested in.

  • Will Trent had an amazing premiere, but has been diminishing returns ever since.

  • Pick your poison.

    The Ellisons will eventually fail at Paramount because the culture is largely against their brand of politics, and WB, HBO, etc. could have survived long enough to have be sold off once that happens.

    Netflix is going to destroy a load-bearing structure of Hollywood for the sake of streaming slop.

    But it's all speculation anyways, and none of it matters, since they opted for your choice of poison, not mine.

  • I can't tell if New Labour is as bad as the Democrats yet, but boy do they also seem determined to serve the interests of the Epstein class, at the direct and immediate expense of everyone else.

  • I've never rooted for Comcast in my life, but even I know that they were best of a very bad bunch who had any chance at winning this bidding process.

    There was NO good outcome from this sale, but Netflix is the worst possibility.

    Say what you will about the Ellisons, they aren't actively trying to destroy cinema (just pervert it), nor are they running the biggest slop machine in existence, but Netflix is, on both accounts.

    This isn't saying I think it would have been good if Paramount won, just less bad than Netflix, as at least HBO would have probably survived.

  • It's called used car salesman chic.

  • Super size me baby

  • Just because I'm pointing out just some of the deeply unjust and inherent flaws in your proposal, doesn't mean it's spin.

    You realize that you're not making these arguments on a libertarian forum, right?

    The vast majority of us here are left wing and not inherently opposed to the concept of government or regulation, yet the vast majority of us here seem very much opposed to your ideas.

    Just some food for thought.

  • Yes, all adults.

    Unless you're proposing that these people on your offender lists are only allowed to date other offenders.

    You are saying that person B is not allowed to date person A, even if both adults consent to enter a relationship, because one of those parties can be sent to jail for the crime of entering into a private consensual adult relationship.

    Ergo, you have removed the ability of both parties to have a mutually consensual relationship of their choosing.

    You haven't even left the confines of Lemmy, and you're already running headfirst into unintended consequences.

  • Every one of your replies simply adds rhetorical flair to my assertion that you are proposing the government should have regulatory power over the rights of adults to engage in private consensual relationships, which would be handled by the criminal legal system.

  • The state has different obligations to protect children than they do adults. Which is why we have things like drinking age laws and legal concepts such as in loco parentis.

    You are completely removing the agency of adults to make their own choices, and instead, inserting the government into those relationships, under the penalty of incarceration and government sanctioned violence, for the crime of having an unauthorized interpersonal consensual relationship between two adults.

    And that's only taking your proposal at face value and ignoring the plethora of unintended consequences, such as perverse political incentives and privatization.

  • they should be disallowed from participating in a close, intimate relationship

    The legal mechanisms required to enforce that would be some form of government permission and approval structure, such as licensing.

    No amount of rhetorical flourish can get away from what they are essentially presenting, which is requiring government permission for interpersonal relationships.

    How would the government track an individuals approval for personal private relationships?

    How would the government enforce penalties on private citizens who engaged in an unauthorized private relationships?

    And then we get to some fun questions, like what happens if the government privatizes the relationship approval system that OP is proposing?

  • Plenty of people that commit certain crimes have conditions for re-entering society in whole and I don't think what I'm suggesting is unreasonable.

    You are suggesting government issued licenses/permission for private people to engage in private relationships.

  • You could have just said yes.

  • Are you proposing that people should have to obtain a government-issued licenses for private interpersonal relationships?

  • He's a world renowned asshole and always has been.

    But don't take my word for it, look it up. Him being a giant asshole is no secret.

  • Michael Jordan is a piece of shit, I don't give a flying fuck about NASCAR, and I'm still rooting for him here.

    I really hope MJ's money allows him to stick with his lawsuit enough to force change to their business model.

  • Finally, a scandal I can just enjoy.