Men like him don't learn from things like that. The only way he would "learn" is if you specified he wrote a manifesto of regret, then committed suicide.
McCarty said family vloggers should be regulated like the film industry, citing as an example a California law that mandates 15% of all child performers’ earnings be set aside in an interest-earning trust.
This is way too little in my opinion. It shouldn't be allowed in the first place. Any amount of earnings that relies on your children necessarily creates a conflict of interest and safety hazard. If you monetize your platform, no part of it should include minors, especially minors for which you are a guardian.
Barrett, a social media strategist who lives in Chicago, said her life was chronicled so much online that a man once sent her a private message on Facebook when she was 12. The message said he’d followed her home as she rode her bike and knew where she lived. The incident increased her anxiety and made her feel like strangers were watching her every move, she said.
In a few decades from now when there are encyclopedia entries about this genocide, I wonder which pictures they will use. I wonder if this will be one of them. Fuck Haley.
Democrats do not have a super majority, which is a problem thanks to the fillabuster. So the only branch of government the democrats have is the executive, which is not enough to fix things.
You’re never gonna convince me personally to vote for Biden. That ship sailed years ago.
I know, single issue voters are too closed minded. You're not the one worth trying to convince.
can you explain how it’s more important to elect the people who have failed over and over again
Federal elections can generally only maintain the status quo due to the current election system we have. Actual change requires progressive candidates at the local level.
as the architect of nearly all the problems America faces.
There is no one person responsible for all of this.
I reject progressivism because its ambiguity allows for any kind of political idea to brand itself progressive (the Nazi party called itself progressive!)
You're the one lumping nazis in with progressives. Any damage done to the name progressive is on your hands.
but if you value a change to the status quo wouldn’t it make sense to cast a ballot with as many votes for candidates endorsed by or representing parties whose policy platforms actually represent the change you’d like to see rather than the (your words here) status quo democrats?
No one person can be blamed for the sorry state of the nation, but if you’re interested in an example of legislation which has done significant harm to Americans and funneled billions into the carceral state that Biden himself takes credit for and that third parties have reenforced, the ‘94 crime bill is one.
I am aware of Biden's history.
What is considered progress now (progress for whom, measured how) may very well be abhorrent in the future.
Yeah, that's how progress works. I don't care for these semantics. You well know what I meant about local politics.
I'll respect your request to quote in full if we forget the semantics.
Now didn’t you just say that federal elections can only maintain the status quo and that change has to happen at a local election level?
I said federal elections generally only can maintain the status quo. Not always. In some respects Biden (for as milquetoast centrist/boomer as he is) has made progress towards dealing with climate change for example.
It seems like I just described the logical steps a person with your views would take when it comes to elections. Why are those ideas perfectly normal when you write them down but suddenly fantastical when I say them?
The difference is, in local elections there is often less competition, and less fuckery in the primaries. Key word being less, not none.
The last president to run unopposed was 1820. Wheras for local elections, every year there is some seat that is being run unopposed.
The democrats always go for some centrist/conservative for the big federal seats. The local seats and minor congressional seats are the only places progressives have a chance. Hence why it is fantasy land to try this stuff for federal positions and not so for local.
So use that, leverage the democratic party into being a party that actually serves the people to make progress, and we'll be doing significantly better. Splitting the vote to get Trump in power will only serve to hurt women, minorities, and the LGBTQ.
Would you characterize your position as “vote however you like unless it’s a state level or higher position for which the democrats are running someone.”?
That's an over simplified take. There are races where the only two candidates are establishment democrats and republicans, even at the local level. I am saying be realistic with your vote, and don't split the vote if a republican has a chance.
How would you say the gbu-39 2000lb jdams Biden is sending to Israel impact women, minorities and the lgbtq in Gaza?
This may surprise you, but there are women, minorities, and the LGBTQ in places outside of Palestine. And they're gonna get hurt if the vote gets split thanks to people like you, who put their need for "clean" hands over the safety of others.
Trump has waffled on whether the Israel-Gaza war should end. But speaking to wealthy donors behind closed doors, he said that he supports Israel’s right to continue “its war on terror.”...
The solution for large scale behavioral problems isn't telling loads of people to do better, it's systemic change, and in this case that means infrastructure for safe biking. That includes traffic calming measures, separated and protected bike lanes, regulation to reign in vehicle sizes and weight, etc.
I don't think there is such a thing. Aside from obviously credible things like "the CIA did X thing Y years ago", conspiracy theories are generally not harmlessly even if they're the flat earth kind.
I've seen interviews of flat earthers who say their family has cut them off because of their conspiracies. It can become such a huge part of them, that they can't help but push it on their friends and families. It drives them crazy, so they cut off said conspiracy theorist from their lives.
And there is also the part that belief in conspiracy theories lowers your standard for evidence, makes you paranoid and stubborn, all of which makes you prone to other conspiracy theories.
I've seen much of this with my own mom. She first started believing the covid vaccines were bad, now she believes Bill Gates & George Soros are trying to depopulate the earth. And nowadays it has lead to her acting like fluoridated water and toothpaste is cyanide. Once you have your foot in the door, every other more dangerous conspiracy theory becomes more palatable.
Not sure. But my partner and I have an out, we will probably move to their home country and start a new life there if need be. It's kind of hard to determine when the right time to leave is.
Screenshot shows three comments being removed from !196 (this community) by one of 196’s mods with the reason for removal being “.” (literally just a period)....
I have no horse in this race, but the fact that you're being communicative and taking any responsibility means you're probably a better mod than most. Admittedly, it's a low bar but still.
There can’t be free-will if there wasn’t any choice. If there there are choices, there is the potential for evil choices.
I am hungry. I decide to make myself a sandwich, with peanut butter, and one of the following:
strawberry jam
honey
grape jelly
None of these are evil, yet they are choices.
Also if proving something about religion is paradoxical proves that religion is wrong, by the same logic proving something about math or science is paradoxical proves those are wrong.
This is a false equivocation. Proving that a fundamental part of a religion (such as a tri-omni god) to be paradoxical means everything built off of that idea is wrong. The same applies for math and science, but when large swaths of things in math and science get proven wrong because of a underling assumption that later turned out to be false, we get closer to the truth. That's how we went from a geocentric model, to a heliocentric model, to the understanding that there isn't any discernible center to the universe.
Halting Problem? Math is false! Schrodinger’s Cat? Physics is false!
Those problems do not prove math and science to be false, as they do not challenge fundamental assumptions.
Following this trend means that all of the efforts by atheists to point out paradoxes in religion doesn’t accomplish anything.
Nah. This paradox quite clearly debunks the idea of a tri-omni god presiding over the universe. This is a fundamental assumption within some major religions, and it's wrong. By extension the ideas built off of it are wrong.
Do the same for math and science and you'll lead to new discoveries.
As for chaos needed for determination of will, that’s because will requires intelligence. A controlled environment doesn’t lead to intelligent choice but rather patterned outcome. ChatGPT is a good example of this
So what turns a controlled environment into a chaotic environment? And what is the problem with a patterned outcome? Intelligence was still used, so what do the results matter?
This all seems quite arbitrary.
As for the “all-loving” part, an argument could only be made for that, from my perspective at least, depending on how you define “love” here. If they sees us the same way we see creations we make and love, then it would explain to some degree why the suffering is still allowed.
The problem with this is than an all loving, omni-benevolent being not just has love for all, but maximal love for all, which contradicts the notion of willingly allowing suffering to exist in any form.
it could be the same point of view that we have towards a vehicle.
"You are so lowly that it is permissible to harm you" is not the point of view of an omni-benevolent being.
The only agreed upon thing would be that significant varied complexity is what is needed to be determined a chaotic environment, philosophically. How significant would be the disagreement.
Ok, then let's assume there is a sufficient number of choices to be deemed chaotic. You have 1000 condiments for the sandwich at your disposal, it's chaotic. However none of them are options which are evil.
The rather arbitrary requirement of chaos is present, a choice is still at hand meaning free will is still present, all without evil.
Well, we’re still trying to determine exactly, precisely is “intelligence”. But ChatGPT is definitely not intelligent, that I do know. I think Google really helped elucidate that point recently to Americans.
So do humans who play tic tac toe lack intelligence? There is a finite and very small number of choices a player can take. It's a patterned outcome.
If I throw a jar of strawberry jam at your head, is that not an evil choice? You chose to make a sandwich with that jam, but someone else can choose to do something evil in the same situation.
You've missed the point of the example situation. Throwing the jar at a person's head isn't one of the available choices. The only choices available are ones that do not harm to anybody, and are in no way sinful. Yet despite that, there is still a choice, there is still decision making.
One my favorite books is Forever Peace, and in the book humanity has found a way to have digital connections directly into the human brain through a port at the base of the neck. The military uses it for remote control warfare drone warfare. The civilian population mainly uses it to connect directly into another partner during sex, which has the effect of feeling what both people are feeling mid-act. Eventually the protagonists find out that if people are connected in this manner for extended periods of time, they become "humanized", meaning they see all other humans as extensions of themselves, incapable of willingly harming other humans. They become pacifists to the extreme. The protagonists go on a fight against the government to humanize the entire world, and eventually they do so, ending all war and crime across the planet.
If free will was really so important to create us with, god could have done so in a manner similar to the humanized people from the book. They still have the ability to make decisions and chose things for themselves, but the option to harm others is never available. If god exists, they could have done something like that, maintaining this need for free will.
So it’s been mathematically proven that not everything in mathematics is provable. Seems paradoxical to me!
That's not a paradox. Just because some things can't be proven doesn't mean everything can't.
I guess that means the field of mathematics is just a weird superstition we should mock, right?
No, because nothing in mathematics requires everything to be provable.
Not a single one requires "all mathematical problems have a solution" to be a premise.
On the other hand, the false belief in a tri-omni god is in fact a prerequisite for a number of religions, and therefore are indeed weird superstitions deserving of mockery.
Significant varied complexity would be more of 5 condiment choices, 2 bread choices, 3 ham choices but 1 might be expired even though it’s your favorite, 3 vegetable choices, peanut butter, 3 jam choices.
This doesn't fundamentally change what I'm getting at. Of all the choices, none of them are evil. Yet they are still choices.
None of these choices are evil, but they can lead to suffering or the potential to make a bad choice.
Call it evil/suffering/sin/etc, the label is irrelevant to my point.
False equivalence. The thing is, you can play tic-tac-toe without intelligent decision. You could win a game through sheer randomness by just flipping a coin (heads = x, tails = o) and randomly picking a square. Want to take it further? You can draw the # on ground in the autumn, and leaves could just fall in place (red vs yellow) and form what looks like a game of tic tac toe.
I don't think you quite understood what I was getting at, so let me rephrase. An intelligent actor with free will and an unintelligent actor without it will both have patterned outcomes to games of tic tac toe.
So patterned outcome cannot be a deciding factor for what is and what is not free will.
Putting a limit on people’s choices is the antithesis of free will.
There will always be limits on people's choices. I don't have wings, I cannot choose to fly. I don't own a nuke, I cannot choose to nuke something.
So because limits on free will are inevitable, they should be reasonable, which means no evil.
For there to be distinct consciousness there needs to be the capability to make choices, which means there’s there’s the capability to make bad choices.
As is demonstrated by the sandwich example, even when no evil choice is available, choice is still possible.
For me to be incapable of throwing a jar of jam at you there would need to be an omnipotent being governing my decisions.
As is demonstrated by Forever Peace, this is not the case. The mechanism for Forever Peace being that humans see others as an extension of themselves, thus being incapable of harming others, but there is no limit to other mechanisms that would do this.
Destroying things is the opposite of creation, which would be against everything God is supposed to be.
That would appear to be blatantly false. The universe constantly is destroying things. Celestial bodies get destroyed every day. Stars die, black holes consume, planets get bombarded with rocks from space. This planet alone has had 5 mass extinction events.
Not a year passes where there isn't some child starved to death or slowly killed by disease. Natural disasters wipe people's homes off the face of the earth and kill thousands.
The universe is an incredibly hostile place.
But is mocking other people’s beliefs making the world a better place?
When it is ultimately a force for suffering, yeah absolutely.
small parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty winning seats or representation
The Green Party of Canada is another example; the party received about 5% of the popular vote from 2004 to 2011 but had only won one seat (out of 308) in the House of Commons in the same span of time. Another example was seen in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, when Ross Perot's candidacy received zero electoral votes despite receiving 19% of the popular vote.
This is an empirically testable claim that has come true.
"The same side" is only a way to categorize. You can graph each party on a linear scale. Badly, but you can do it. You can make it more accurate by adding a second axis, such as with the PCT. Still bad, but better. And you can keep adding more and more defining characteristics, until you'd end up with and 8d graph or something utterly incomprehensible to humans.
So whether you like it or not, we as humans with our limited minds stick to things like the PCT, with only 2 axis, or in other words, there are sides.
You're taking up issue with semantics. I don't give a flying fuck what you think about there being sides or not. At the end of the day each party holds some amount of agreement with another.
And I agree way more with Biden than Trump, because Trump wants to kill trans people and end democracy. And I'll vote for Biden to prevent that.
There is no way to vote against a candidate. You can’t mark the bubble “anybody but trump”, or “I wish the democrats had run anyone else”.
Sure you can. I just explained how.
A vote for Biden is a vote in support of Biden, not a vote against trump. That’s how it’ll be counted.
This is just semantics.
Support for Biden incorporates support for the genocide he supplies and denies the existence of.
And lack of support for Biden incorporates support for genocide that Trump will continue and excelerate, in addition to the death and other harm that will come to minorities in the U.S., as well as the potential end of what little democracy we have.
It's a catch 22, and you're choosing the worst option.
You probably don’t want to invoke the imagery of blood on one’s hands when you’re advocating for Biden.
Blood is on the hands of every taxpayer. I'm strategically voting to reduce that amount of blood. You're doing nothing to reduce it, and potentially increasing it.
Re-replying since you deleted your original comment:
I’m not saying he should pander to fascists. I’m saying “here is his motivations, here is what his opponents will do, thus influencing his motivations”.
Biden is a piece of shit, that’s well established. I’m saying that he will never listen to progressives, and efforts to get him to listen aren’t going to result in anything.
If you’re considering any vote that isn’t for trump to be against trump than my psl ballot is against trump too and voting “against” trump is a meaningless distinction.
The only currently available candidate that stands a chance is Biden. I know you cover that in your next sentence so:
If only a vote for a candidate that has a chance at beating trump counts as a vote against him then unless the polls change somehow your Biden vote isn’t a vote “against” trump.
Biden has still has a chance of beating Trump. The polls are horseshit.
If you’re suggesting that only a vote for the candidate who has the best chance to beat trump counts as a vote against trump, you’re discounting the fact that Biden doesn’t have to be that candidate. He could still step down or not be selected at the convention.
If that were to happen I would be elated.
It is not semantics to be clear about how the electoral system works. Votes are for candidates, not against them. It’s important to recognize that because parties will look at vote totals to see what is acceptable political action, messaging, etc.
You can say what you like, but this is still just semantics. I understand what you're saying is technically correct, but you're missing the point of what is being said when somebody says they are voting against something.
You're ignoring the intended meaning and focusing on the technical mechanics.
and accept that their vote for Biden is literally a vote in support of his aid and denial of a genocide that we see disgusting images of everyday.
A vote for a candidate is not a blanket support for all policies and actions they make.
from a person who actually is considering voting for trump.
Then you're an even bigger fool than you initially let on.
That’s who you wanna convince, right? The undecided voter? How do you expect to convince someone who can remember no genocide when they compare it with the presence of a genocide?
This isn't my job. And you're not who I'm here to convince.
I think you have a deeply flawed and warped worldview if you would say the blood of Palestinians is on the hands of every taxpayer.
Every single tax payer is ultimately sending their money to the federal government, who then uses that money to bomb and kill Palestinians. Most states gave police training ops with the IDF.
That's not a warped view, those are the facts, and it means blood is on all of our hands.
despite a majority in favor of ending arms shipments and immediate ceasefire, Biden continues on.
And yet we pay our taxes, which kills Palestinians. You bear responsibility just as I. You can't avoid that anymore than you can avoid a Trump/Biden winning.
So then, the problem is not with FPTP per se, but with Presidential forms of government.
It's a combination problem. There is only one seat available, and the race is done with FPTP, meaning the spoiler effect is especially strong.
If we switched to approval or star, no such effect would take place. Of course there is other election reform needed to make third parties viable, but there is no such thing as a simple solution for this problem.
I have already shown multiple examples of third parties under FPTP systems.
And those parties wield very little power. There are still parties that dominate the elections. No one party should have anything even remotely close to 50% of the seats.
join me in telling everyone that they don’t have to vote for Biden. That’s how you get the thing you want. You commit to not voting for Biden.
The error in this is that you are relying on boomer who's supporting genocide to do the right thing. Be a gambler all you like, I'm not going to gamble with fascism. It's shortsighted and will get overall more people killed.
Every fucking day Biden's campaign team sends me emails asking for donations, and they send me like 8 every day. And every time I respond with imagery of dead fucking bodies in Palestine. And do you know how they've responded? They fucking haven't. They know they're losing votes because of this. They know they're losing ground because of this, because every other email from them is them complaining that they are getting out fundraised by Trump.
But they don't even give enough of a shit to have one of their lower level lackeys from their campaign team respond. They truly do not give a shit. And you're gonna trust them to do the right thing and step down? You're gonna trust genocide supporters to do the right thing?
A vote can only ever be interpreted as blanket support for the candidate’s policies
Not so. A vote can be interpreted a million different ways. It's a number, not an essay of love. It is a statement saying "of all of these choices, X is my preference". Trying to decipher any more meaning of that requires more data which isn't captured in an election.
How do you tell the difference between a voter who chose a candidate at random versus one who chose them because they were best friends? You can't.
You don’t get to say “i like Biden but not his border detentions”, you get to say “Biden”.
Sure you can, you just did. You're comparing a fully articulated thought to a vote, of course they aren't going to match.
As I wrote, I invoked a person considering voting for trump over Biden to illustrate how difficult it is to portray trump as a clear danger more important than an ongoing genocide.
It isn't difficult to illustrate how much larger of a danger Trump is:
You said you’re not here to convince me, so who is it, undecideds, non voters or some third group?
Anybody fence sitting.
If you really believed that the blood of innocent people was on the hands of every American due to Biden actions you wouldn’t be in here telling people to vote for him.
Why not? And it isn't just Biden's actions, it's pretty much every major political action the U.S. has ever taken since it's inception. And word of advice, if you're trying to convince people, starting from a position of "you don't ACTUALLY believe X because you said Y" is just silly, and a waste of everyone's time.
If you believed that you were made a genocidare by his disgusting rhetoric and material support you’d be opposed to him
I've already explain that's not how this works. It's a two party system.
You’d be in the streets protesting or campaigning to end support to israel or any other number of other actions
I'm trying not to get shot by our police state and widowing my disabled wife. So yeah, fuck me I guess.
Make your voice heard to them with the only device given you that can’t be manipulated or deepfaked or covered up. Vote third party this November.
I will not be handing Trump another victory, no thank you. It was a disaster the first time we decided to botch it in 2016, it's going to be even worse this time.
Update: IRS successfully launches their own free Direct File - now ALL of my fellow 'murcans are eligible for 2025 ( sh.itjust.works )
Source...
Alito tells lawmakers he will not recuse from Supreme Court cases despite flag controversy ( www.cnn.com )
The first social media babies are adults now. Some are pushing for laws to protect kids from their parents’ oversharing ( www.cnn.com )
The Current State of Affairs ( lemmy.world )
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0e6c131f-4ea4-4761-bdea-a56396459ddf.jpeg...
Nikki Haley writes ‘finish them’ on IDF artillery shells during Israel visit ( www.theguardian.com )
SSDE ( lemmy.world )
Innovation makes useful things smaller - overconsumption makes them bigger and more meaningless ( norden.social )
Source: https://norden.social/@hart/112513927064083221
It’s a work in progress ( i.redd.it )
I've been like this ever since I quit school.
Trump told donors he will crush pro-Palestinian protests, deport demonstrators ( www.washingtonpost.com )
Trump has waffled on whether the Israel-Gaza war should end. But speaking to wealthy donors behind closed doors, he said that he supports Israel’s right to continue “its war on terror.”...
The NYTimes is once again trashing the most promising mobility innovation of the 21st century ( lemmy.ml )
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/16133154...
Can YOU Pass This Test? ( lemmy.world )
Kyle Rittenhouse Tells Native Americans They Can ‘Leave’ If They Hate America ( newsone.com )
Americans, what's the plan if Trump wins the election in November? (serious)
Completely normal- ai rule ( lemmy.ca )
India adds record 10 GW of solar capacity in Q1 2024 ( www.msn.com )
[meta] "." is not a rule ( lemmy.cafe )
Screenshot shows three comments being removed from !196 (this community) by one of 196’s mods with the reason for removal being “.” (literally just a period)....
Male birth control breakthrough safely switches off fit sperm for a while ( newatlas.com )
A cool guide to Epicurean Paradox ( i.redd.it )
https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/1d04zaf/a_cool_guide_to_epicurean_paradox/...
X considers "cisgender" a slur, and moderates it over actual slurs ( www.salon.com )
What Radicalized You? ( lemmy.world )
Pope Francis is gearing up for the first millennial saint, a web developer known as 'God's influencer' ( ca.news.yahoo.com )
Carlo Acutis, a teenage website developer, was attributed a second miracle by Pope Francis, advancing his path to becoming the first millennial saint.
Someone has to do it, so why not me? ( lemmy.world )
"Of course not - that might hurt my accelerationist dreams!" ( lemmy.world )