this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
64 points (92.1% liked)

Asklemmy

42502 readers
1217 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] VinesNFluff@pawb.social 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

More and more people are against giving kids internet access. Allow me to go against the grain:

If your child is neurodivergent, or LGBTQ+, or any other form of misfit, then denying them internet access is tantamount to condemning them to social isolation. It wasn't until I got unrestricted internet access, circa 17 years of age, that I realised that actually, no, I wasn't a fucking alien, there were hundreds of thousands of people just like me, but I didn't know because I was stuck in this shitty small town with shitty small town people. So I spent seventeen years thinking there was something fundamentally wrong with me when in reality there was something wrong with the environment around me.

I would have had a much happier early life if I'd gotten internet earlier. Wouldn't have spent 90% of my teens being suicidal.

[–] mub@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 day ago

Places of religious worship and formal teaching (e.g. churches, and Sunday schools) should be treated like bars and porn. You need to be an adult to access bars and porn because children do not fully understand what is happening or the consequences of being there. Churches (etc) are the same and there should be a legal age limit.

It should also be socially unacceptable to talk about religious opinions in front of kids, just like most people don't swear or talk dirty, etc.

I agree with schools teaching kids "about" religions, just like sex and drugs. Teaching facts is good, preaching (aka indoctrination) is not.

[–] janus2@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Most drugs should be over-the-counter. The especially dangerous or addictive ones maybe just require counselling with a pharmacist first. But I'm more concerned about people not able to access the medication they need than I am about idiots removing themselves from the gene pool by OD.

People in my dumbass country would rather 10 people with a genuine medical need suffer as long as 1 addict can't get a fix, and it's so many layers of bullshit.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't know if this is a hot take, but I think people need to stop basing their lives off of celebrities/influencers. We equate wealth with some hidden knowledge, when they're just people. Sometimes really fucking stupid people who happen to have a profitable talent. Next time some tries to sell you something or teach you something, ask yourself if this person is even an authority/knowledgeable on what they're talking about. I've gotten in the habit of mentally going "and you are?" when I get new information. Sometimes you find our that person is a leader in their field. Sometimes it's just some terminally online teenager.

Hotter Take: I think black people put too much stock in celebrities and what they'll do for the black community. You don't get freakishly wealthy being a sweetheart. Jay Z is not going to save us. And our blind loyalty has us supporting subpar performances and people because we "have to support" and it keeps fucking us over. No, I'm not supporting this business just because it's black owned if the service/quality sucks (especially since black owned goods tend to be more expensive).

[–] frauddogg@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think black people put too much stock in celebrities and what they’ll do for the black community.

Nah deadass. Black capitalists have done nothing but mislead ever since Sean Carter put a sixth zero next to his net worth; and that goes the same for Sean Combs(who is in SO much legal hot water I expect him to boil by the end of the month), for Beyoncé, for Rihanna, for Michael Render, all of 'em. Black capitalism is just minstrelry and misleadership; and Black Excellence™ is just Talented Tenth-assed classism with a fresh coat of paint.

[–] Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Fediverse is not for everyone and I'd rather not have fediverse go mainstream, and if it does I'd rather have normies use normie instances like lemmy.world and mastodon.social because that way you can filter them out if you don't like them.

[–] probableprotogen@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Children should not be exposed to advertising at a young age (below 11/12 years old)

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

that wouldnt account for leap days tho :/

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Me tossing leftovers in the trash does not in any way interfere with hungry people getting food.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 23 hours ago

Especially if that's food that's going to negatively impact your own health, like junk food.

[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

true. but next time, just buy/make less food.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

because the excess is going to waste. why do you think ? sure, it doesnt directly affect hungry people, however:

  1. it is expensive
  2. it is increasing demand for food, raising the price
  3. if the food is still good, you can give it to someone who will appreciate it

is it so hard to simply buy an appropriate amount of food ? or just eating the leftovers ?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
  1. Not even in the top ten list of choices I make leading to not enough money
  2. Perhaps on the shortest timescale, but increasing the market for food reduces prices long term
  3. Refutes my original claim without argument, so I disagree unless you’ve got more to back this up.
[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 1 points 18 hours ago
  1. every bit counts. otherwise i might as well throw away money on everything since rent is so high. if you decide that your spending is negligible (or would be spent regardless), then we can agree to disagree; obv what u spend ur money on is up to u, but i am entitled to my opinion on it.
  2. you might be right about that tbh, although i would like a source.
  3. you are right that it doesnt actively take food away from hungry people. i meant to say that you can improve the situation by giving away leftovers (assuming they are still in reasonable condition).

as a side note, i think the way most people are introduced to the argument is by their parents when they are young. the parents are simply trying to get their children in the habit of considering others' needs, while also saving their own money. especially since most of the time the kid actually is hungry, but just doesnt want to eat vegetables or whatever. if someone (irl) is arguing the starving people card to you as an adult when u are wasting food, then that is less reasonable: though they have good intentions, i agree it is not all that impactful on those hungry. but again, every bit counts.

[–] VinesNFluff@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If for no other reason, then in the name of your own bank account.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My bank account’s biggest limitation is my brain cycles.

[–] VinesNFluff@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago

more relatable than I wish it was.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You are bad at parenting if you give your child a smart phone or social media.

[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 day ago (7 children)
[–] geoma@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Its difficult to point number because context, but 13 y/o at leat

[–] frauddogg@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

16 at least I'd say. I didn't get my first smartphone til I was that old and it still nearly fried my brain having unfettered access to a screen.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 79 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Hot sauces should be required by law to list their Scoville range (SHU) on their packaging.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BurnSquirrel@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Here's one I get a lot of flack for that I don't bring up much

I think people trying to cook up gun control laws are targeting the wrong guns, in going after semi auto or military rifles, when they should be going after cheap handguns that have been available forever. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, and that's almost always done with a hand gun, but even if you control for that the majority of homicides with guns are done with hand guns.

Hand guns are usually relatively cheap. They are very easy to conceal. Its very common for people to walk into a bar with a holstered hand gun and make a series of bad decisions. Its too common for people to get in road rage incidents that escalate into something tragic because of a handgun in the glove box. People leave them around their house and treat them as toys that kids end up finding.

AND I would argue that handguns are not in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. They are not fighting weapons. They are for fun, personal protection, or making people feel tough without having to do any real work. They have little range and lesser power. There are are no troops in the world that deploy with handguns as a primary weapon. US military officers get them but that's more about tradition.

Yes, I'm aware that shooting incidents done with rifles would be more deadly, but the fact there would be much fewer of them at all would be a net benefit in a society that banned or severely restricted hand guns.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] csolisr@hub.azkware.net 16 points 2 days ago

@TehBamski Most entertainment is produced in abusive environments, promotes positively evil people to become famous, and twists the legal system through in such a way that it enables surveillance and erodes ownership rights. But barely anyone is willing to boycott it.

Using windows os should be marked as crimes against humanity.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

[Country] isn't real, it was made up by [its founders] to [dodge taxes / dominate neighboring city-states / measure dicks with [Other Country]]

[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

heh, just replace [Country] with [The Country I dont like] and you've got yourself a deal

load more comments
view more: next ›