Is it really screwing up the education system, or is it just revealing how screwed up it already was?
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 82
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 82
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I'm curious, do the same people who think that the moon landing was faked also believe that Voyager is fake? Because to me, Voyager is more impressive at this point.
Voting to make cuts to an already ailing ATC system makes no sense to me. Simply from a self-preservation aspect, I would think this is one service that all politicians and oligarchs would maintain. It doesn't matter if you fly private or commercial, everyone uses and needs ATC to fly safely.
At least with something like global warming/climate change, I can see people selfishly believing it won't effect them during their lifetime, but the 2nd and 3rd order effects of removing ATC can be immediate and fatal.
I only hope that a minimum number of bystanders are killed when poetic justice occurs.
I am not arguing with the obvious corruption, but to provide a counterpoint to the second part of the argument: if we aren't allowed to make peace with former terrorists, then we can never stop fighting each other, and if we keep fighting each other, then we will keep creating the next generation of terrorists.
I was thinking more like:
I say please and thank you when writing to LLMs, not because I think they care or will remember or to anthropomorphize them, but because I don't want to develop bad habits. I don't want all my writing and conversations with actual humans to become curt and transactional because I forget that they are human and talk to them like an LLM.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
It may outlast the entire country. Considering it was founded 140 years before the U.S., that wouldn't be entirely surprising.
I can hardly believe that we have devolved so far, so quickly. We are literally one step away from becoming an authoritarian dictatorship. The plan is this:
- Deport (and by deport, they mean imprison for life) immigrants. These immigrants will mostly be legitimately illegal and gang associated criminals, but there will be a few individuals with legal standing and no criminal records. This could simply be the result of denying due process, or it could be an intentional test. The important factor is that 5th Amendment Due process rights are denied to all of them. The fact that these people (but be sure to de-humanize them as much as possible) are immigrants will be the distracting factor. <---- We are here
- Deport (and by deport, they mean imprison for life) criminals. These will be legitimate criminals with legitimately horrible records; that will be the distracting issue that will be made the focus of the argument: "They are serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, we don't want them here, so we should get rid of them." This has already been announced as the plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfrwWz-m5I . That is not the point! The point is that they are still U.S. citizens, despite their crimes. The significance of this is that it will be the final barrier that needs to be broken, and the final protection that must be dismantled for the final solution to be enacted. If no one steps up and successfully defends the constitutional rights of these American citizens, then all the pieces will be in place for step 3.
- Deport (and by deport, they mean imprison for life) political dissidents, rivals, business opponents, and maybe just anyone the administration doesn't like. If they are political dissidents they will claim that they have committed crimes like, "hate speech against America(TM)", if they are a minority, they will be "associated with gangs", if they are business rivals it will have committed "economic terrorism", or something like that. It doesn't really matter because they eliminated due process in step 1 (remember that was the important factor, not the immigrant dis-tractor), and without due process they don't have to prove any crimes. Our last defense would have been the simple fact that we are American Citizens, but we established that doesn't matter in step 2 because they were "bad people", but now the "bad people" are whoever the administration decides is bad.
The context of the 5th amendment is important to understand its intent:
Historically, the Fifth Amendment draws significant influence from English common law. The grand jury clause specifically dates back to the Magna Carta, and was designed to protect accused persons from prosecution by the English royalty. In keeping with that intention, the Constitution’s framers opted to adapt the grand jury to the Constitution, so as to protect citizens from prosecution by the federal government.Reagan Library
Even in a Monarchy, which is not the form of government we are supposed to have, the Magna Carta offered protections against the King from prosecuting commoners, which is the origin of this amendment. We aren't just devolving to pre-revolution America, which had enough disagreements with the rule of King George III that it sparked a war...no we are devolving to a pre-Magna Carta England type of Government. We are descending into middle-age feudalism with complete authoritarian rule.... and we aren't fortunate enough to have a dictator like Alfred the Great.
The U.S. Military has also spent multiple decades teaching decentralized command as a doctrinal philosophy. It is very much not organized to be controlled by top-down dictatorship.
The difference is sincerity.
I respectfully disagree with that consensus.
Her legal name was Bradley Manning when she was charged and tried: https://web.archive.org/web/20110726100828/http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/eCache/DEF/12/444.html
When referring to legal proceedings it only makes sense to use someone's legal name during those proceedings. Court documents do not get retroactively updated when someone changes their name.
Ultimately, what is disrespectful to Chelsea Manning is entirely determined by Chelsea Manning not the Lemmy Community, Military Community, Trans Community, or any other group.
Nobody gets to be offended for me, and I am the sole determiner of what is respectful and disrespectful to me.
Good interview with the Dev for anyone who is interested in more of the details from this thread, like why Swift? What's so hard about browsers? Etc. https://youtu.be/z1Eq0xlVs3g
Reminds me of the Alan MacMasters hoax, famous inventor of the toaster: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_MacMasters_hoax
Religion aside, if the universe is fundamentally unpredictable, then science is impossible.
No where did I say we shouldn't be working towards better.
No, but you immediately dismissed my S and A tier objectives as fantasy and objectives that shouldn't even be talked about. If you dismiss an objective as fantasy you aren't going to work towards it. If I tell myself it is impossible for me to run a sub-3 hour marathon, then I am not going to put the effort in to train for it and I will certainly never achieve it, but if I believe it is possible, I will work towards it, and even though I'll probably never achieve it, I might get close and be much happier with the results than never having tried.
Laws have to reflect reality though and not an ideal that can either never be achieved
This is the same flawed logic that I pointed out is being used in the gun violence "debate". A country with no gun violence is an unachievable ideal that doesn't reflect reality, so we shouldn't try to restrict who has access to guns. You don't see the parallel flawed logic there?
I was trying to find a common platitude that people on opposite sides of this issue could work towards, albiet for very different reasons.
- Do we agree that unwanted pregnancies are an undesirable thing?
- Do we agree that abortions are a direct result of #1?
- Do we agree that abortions are an undesirable thing? If not from a moral stance, then at least in the way having an appendectomy is an undesirable thing?
If we agree on these things, then can we agree to work towards things that achieve the desired end state where abortion is legal but completely un-utilized?
I would have the exact same objective for homicide. I would love to have a country where homicide is legal but there are no homicides. Obviously that sounds ridiculous and completely unrealistic. What is the point? The point is that I want a country where nobody is murdered because nobody wants to murder anyone, not because they are afraid of legal punishment. Legal deterrence only goes so far. I am 100% confident I could murder someone and face no legal consequences, so what effect does the law have on my decision making?
This is what I have come to realize with abortion: I hate abortion, but what does changing the law really change? I don't want mothers who only birth their babies because they are afraid of going to jail. I want mothers who love their children, both before and after birth. I don't want women to find themselves in incredibly difficult situations with an unwanted pregnancy. But changing the law isn't going to change anyone's heart, and that is ultimately what I care about.
I know what a tier list is, but I'm stuck on mobile right now and it was hard to find an editor to edit the tier elements with. The new format is better.
So basically you are saying that abortions are a fact of life...
Glad to know that a country where women don't have unwanted pregnancies is a pure fantasy, so it isn't an objective that anyone should work towards.
- Let's not try to reduce the maternal mortality rate so that women don't have to make the horrible choice between living and having an abortion
- Let's not have safe, effective, and available contraception so that women don't get pregnant on accident
- Let's not try to eliminate rape so that women aren't forcibly impregnated
No, a country with legal abortions that are unwanted isn't achievable so we shouldn't try to work towards it. Just like we will never eliminate gun violence, so why bother even trying to work towards it...
I feel like this is just as much of a meme as this post: https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f7799a12-d1a3-4cc3-b682-8c2943043baa.jpeg
Which is a screenshot of an old news story.
Or this post: https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/1ef0fc84-eace-47f0-b928-7a1446e03b6c.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=256
Which is simply a screenshot of someones Twitter post.
So I'm pretty sure that isn't why it is downvoted so much...
At least my content is original.
There is no such thing as an impartial sponsor; some are more obviously biased than others, but the belief in a fictitious impartiality is part of the problem. It shouldn't take a meta-study for people to see am obvious conflict of interest.
I'm biased. You are biased. Everyone is biased.