Water usage is probably my biggest. Living in a high desert, my wife and MIL see no problem with filling one side of the sink with hot soapy water to wash a few dishes because “that’s just how I’ve always done it”, to watering the grass and plants for hours. All of this makes me mental.
I ditched my smartphone over 5 years ago, and will NEVER go back. In fact, I don’t have a phone of any kind. They are surveillance/psyop devices, and they are turning people into biological robots. The scifi show Dollhouse is basically where this is all heading.
Using AI is amoral and I will never use it. As a programmer, every day it feels like I’m increasingly the minority.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Utilize the tools or you’ll end up unemployed.
In all honesty, I don’t think I could live with myself and, at least currently, think I’d rather find a new career path.
don’t give up. you are not alone. patience is key and the time where deep understanding of technology will become essential again
Taking a car for a 3km distance is unconscionable when walking or cycling are valid options.
Driving less than the speed limit will not kill you.
French cuisine is extremely overrated
Keep right except to pass. The passing lane is for passing.
The abortion debate will never be resolved.
This is mainly from the two sides arguing about different things.
Pro-life is about how a life starts at conception which means that abortion is murder. Pro-choice is about how women should have a choice to have an abortion.
Hasn’t it already been resolved in a whole bunch of countries? I mean, sure there’s still some folks that disagree with the outcome, but you’ve got folks disagreeing about the earth being round as well. If that’s your bar for debates not having been resolved then I agree with you, but I’d also say you’re not saying anything particularly interesting, disagreeable, or controversial.
The debate will probably go somewhere if people took a moment to think about why murder is bad and why choice is important, then consider why that would or wouldn’t apply to this specific scenario.
I believe a woman should have the right to abort the child as long as its under 18*12 months.
/s
Pro choice is about choice
Pro life isn’t about life as they’ve never cared about any of that shit. That baby is born? Toss it in a dumpster as far as they care.
Pro life is about control and power, I’m willing to.doe on that hill a hundred times
Case and point.
You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.
It is not even that their priorities are wrong or conflicting. I hope you can agree that being murdered is worse than those children having a bad childhood.
Please note that I am not taking either a pro-life or pro-choice position. My position is that until one side can actually understand the other the debate will never go anywhere.
If withholding lifesaving care is murder, everyone who hasn’t donated a kidney is a murderer. Everyone who didn’t donate blood this month is a murderer. Everyone who isn’t an organ donor is a murderer.
No one getting an abortion is a murderer, they’re just not agreeing to share all of their organs with another person for almost a year.
So yeah, I just don’t understand their position. They don’t call withholding medical care by sharing organs murder in any other context.
I posted this to another commenter but feel it also applies here.
I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.
Instead of appealing to your own incredulity, perhaps you could just look at the other actions of the people involved. If the people claiming to be Pro Life to prevent child murder, they would take actions to prevent that outcome through comprehensive sex education and contraceptive availability. Most of them don’t. They would also not vote to annihilate social safety nets for children once they are born. Most of them do. Taking those into account suggests that child welfare is not the only or even the dominant goal of the movement.
If your entire argument is that there exists some pro life people who care about these things then sure, you “win” that’s not relevant to the overall situation. The dominant views and actions of the pro life movement in the US stem from a concerted effort to create a political wedge and to create captive single-issue voters. It worked.
The US is not unique here in its diversity of views. All across the world people (even pro-choice people) don’t “like” abortion. There is no preference for it. It is for most people a (very) necessary evil. But most western countries have managed to deal with the the abortion issue in a healthier and effective way that is more aligned with the stated goals of the pro life movement than what the actual pro life movement has managed in the US.
Acting like this is some free, open ethical debate devoid of political manipulation between people trying to save children and people trying to maintain women’s bodily autonomy is hopelessly naive.
I’m not sure what exactly you are saying I am being incredulous about. You’ve brought up a lot of points here let me try to respond to each of them.
But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
From what I understand, there are 3 primary ways that a debate can end; each side comes to an agreement about what is correct/what should be done, each side agrees that they will not be able to agree on what is correct, or one side decides they are unable to change the opinion of the other side.
Much of your posts discusses how one side (Pro-life) is incorrect. This does not touch on my central argument. If you proposed a situation in which one of the three outcomes could occur then that would disprove my belief.
You talk about education and how if Pro-life proponents actually cared about reducing abortions then they would fight for “real” education, not abstinence only. But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.
Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.
You are right that child welfare is not the central part of their belief set. The central part is “life begins at conception. And ending a life is murder”. Take for instance a hypothetical attorney general who focuses mode attention on petty shoplifting rather than murderers. I would hope that you would agree that they do not have the people’s best interest at heart. This is how Pro-life proponents see this debate.
Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters. There is a reason why on a ballot you are not required to fill in every question or there might be an option for obtaining. If we were to legislate against people being single-issue voters then that might quickly devolve into a facsimile of literacy tests. Tests which have already been ruled as unconstitutional.
“that’s just how I’ve always done it” is the worst when it’s used as an excuse to avoid putting effort into personal growth
Nobody in your life agrees with you? You gotta get out of that toxic environment.
In relation to your hill: While you’re entirely correct, that’s absurdly small potatoes compared to industrial water use. Yes, we should be conscious of our water use and limit unnecessary overuse, but a higher priority ought to be regulating industrial use. Data centers are the obvious example of using way too much for bullshit that ain’t worth the water or power. Speaking of power, we could reduce water use by power plants. Nearly all generate power by boiling water. I’m a power plant operator at a plant that happens to use reclaim water as our source water, and we purify on-site for the main process, and we have a brine concentrator and crystallizer on-site to recycle the cooling tower blowdown and remove the solids to a dumpster that goes to a landfill. Unfortunately we burn methane, so I can’t say that we’re green, but we at least discharge zero water into local waterways (except storm drains when it rains).
My hill: Vote with your wallet. If you really believe in something, stop giving money to companies fighting against it. I won’t buy chikfila because the owners actively spend money on gay conversion camps and lobby to reverse the legality of same sex marriage. It’s impossible to research every little thing before every purchase, and sometimes there’s no reasonable alternative, but something like chikfila is easy to avoid. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Little changes can add up, and doing anything even a little bit better is an improvement over not trying.
Bonus hill: Put your fucking grocery cart into the cart corral. It takes ten seconds and prevents cars from getting hit. It’s kind of the simplest measure for societal decency. I don’t believe in the death penalty, but what value are you contributing to society if you’re too selfish to return your fucking cart?
From Wallet Voting by Cory Doctrow:
Wallet-votes always go to the people with the thickest wallets, and statistically, that is not you.
It doesn’t mean to keep shopping at Amazon if you hate their business practices, it just means that you & your friends won’t have any impact on Amazon’s business policies.
Granted, you’d be a hypocrite, so definitely don’t shop where you hate, but don’t expect a giant corp to change.
I read that link and I’m not sure I understand Doctorow’s reasoning on the subject. I typically find people that dismiss voting with their wallet fundamentally misunderstand microeconomics but either way, both points (yours and mine) are definitely not hills I’d die on.
Your hill - first two sentences absolutely, in UK so no chikfila.
www.Goodsuniteus.com is a start to seeing where your money goes. Still looking for a better alternative.
The good news is as the giant evil corporations buy up everything it gets easier to just stop buying shit in general.
Getting married without a prenup in today’s world is foolish. Ask marriage counselors and they will in general tell you to get a prenup. A prenup is wrote by two people and both have their own attorney. Anyone who refuses to get one or even discuss one is someone you should run from. A prenup details how a divorce AND how a marriage should run.
Also anyone who wants operating system or device level age verification doesn’t understand how bad things will get if we do that. It’s only about mass surveillance and selling of your data. It does nothing to protect kids.
my hill: when i post an asklemmy, i place my answer as a comment, so the thread doesn’t become a bunch of replies to my personal answer, so each reply to the post relates directly to the original question
I hate doing dishes like that anyway. I just scrub them one at a time under running water after letting them soak in whatever water can fill in. I don’t really think of the sink as a sanitary item regardless of how much you clean it. The drain is always going to be gross.
“Deserving”, “credit”, “blame”, “justice”, and related concepts are all collective hallucinations. We’re all observers riding around powerless in robotic meat chassis and the part of us that experiences every bad and good thing we’ll ever experience is completely disconnected from the part of us that makes any decisions. There’s no “justice” in making sure someone who committed some atrocity experiences negative consequences. The “justice” system should be focused solely on rehabilitation and protecting people – innocent or otherwise. Governments trying to be in the business of “punishing” people is misguided at best.
In pretty much the opposite direction, my hill is that “right”,“wrong”, “blameworthiness” and “praiseworthyness” are concepts that people are in general allergic to critical thought towards, and they are EXACTLY the concepts that people should be approaching in order to have a better life and to make a better world.
I’m not going to eat a fucking hot dog, I don’t care how much everyone else pretends to enjoy them, they’re a crime against food and decency.
Are you not dismissing every other type of sausage, or did just not consider them? Because if this is about lips & assholes, almost all of them are all lips & assholes.
It’s not so much lips and assholes, I know far too much about processed foods to be bothered by that, it’s the taste of a hot dog. They don’t taste like meat, they don’t taste like food, they taste specifically and mercilessly of hot dog. I’m not opposed to a good sausage, but most sausages aren’t good because for some reason almost all of them have to have fucking fennel seeds in them.
Have you tried the Bacon SPAM? It tastes kinda like a cross between hot dog and bologna.
That can go straight to hell.
