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/)C

Cruel

@ Cruel @programming.dev

Posts
2
Comments
75
Joined
11 mo. ago

  • Megyn Kelly suggests Epstein wasn't an 'actual pedophile' if victims went through puberty

    Jump

  • My point is that there is a difference which is important. People are acting like the two are somehow the same.

    People do the same with rape, acting like all rape is equally bad. When clearly having sex with your drunk wife is not as bad as abducting and violently restraining a stranger to rape them.

    All rape is bad, and that includes all sex with minors. But there are certainly still distinctions to be made.

  • Megyn Kelly suggests Epstein wasn't an 'actual pedophile' if victims went through puberty

    Jump

  • So you think the legal punishment for an adult having sex with a 5 year old should be the equivalent to them having sex with a 15 year old? There's no difference?

    Luckily, the laws in all states disagree with you.

  • Megyn Kelly suggests Epstein wasn't an 'actual pedophile' if victims went through puberty

    Jump

  • Making up quotes now?

  • Megyn Kelly suggests Epstein wasn't an 'actual pedophile' if victims went through puberty

    Jump

  • Being sexually attracted to 17 year old females makes someone a reprehensible creep?

    Most straight men probably fit into that.

  • Megyn Kelly suggests Epstein wasn't an 'actual pedophile' if victims went through puberty

    Jump

  • Why? It's different both legally and clinically. Almost all states increase the severity of the crime for younger victims, usually choosing the delineating age around 12 or 13.

  • Elon Musk says Optimus will 'eliminate poverty' in speech after his $1 trillion pay package was approved

    Jump

  • Are you joking? Not even close.

  • Big Problem 🥀

    Jump

  • When the state fully controls your property, it's not private property and thus not capitalistism. It's not socialism either, because they still give deference to the original "private" owner.

    China is a perfect example of how a fascist country would operate, honestly. It's frankly annoying that people don't routinely call it a fascist state and instead call it communist.

  • Big Problem 🥀

    Jump

  • Fascism is a modern iteration of an old problem. Not even the worst version of it. Plenty of theocracies and empires in history promoted similar strong group/national identity paired with subjugation of individuals to an authoritarian state.

    And fascism is not even compatible with capitalism as it requires state control over industry. It would be more compatible with socialism except that it's not nationalizing industry for the benefit of the working class explicitly, just the benefit of the nation/state.

  • Big Problem 🥀

    Jump

  • Implementing climate control will be costly and is still controversial, especially proposed solutions that require polluting the stratosphere with chemicals.

    I'm still optimistic about geoengineering research.

    Of course, nobody will want to foot that bill until they're staring the threat in the eyes.

  • Big Problem 🥀

    Jump

  • It's common knowledge that humans are accelerating climate change, they're not the sole source of it. 🤷

  • Big Problem 🥀

    Jump

  • You're right, and there is no consensus. Companies, and even current governments, are ill-equipped for solving long-term problems. Especially a problem that won't be a net harm for like 60 years.

    My point was that all that money could've gone to a real long-term solution which requires a lot of research (and which humanity will need to finance eventually anyways). Reminds me of people who spend more money on car repairs than what the car is worth. They see a mechanic bill of $400 and think it's cheaper than buying another vehicle. It gets it running for another 4 months. Then a dozen bills later...

    "Another 4 months" for current climate change policies is like "another 50 years"... being generous.

    Reducing carbon emissions is a temporary solution, buying a couple thousand more years. Taken to its most extreme, it requires human industry to ultimately cease and thus make it even more difficult to solve the problem permanently.

  • Big Problem 🥀

    Jump

  • That would help, but definitely not stop climate change.

  • Big Problem 🥀

    Jump

  • Humanity's carbon footprint has been a distraction. All that money and effort (green energy legislation, carbon caps, etc) could've been funneled into geoengineering for proper long-term solutions.

    Even if humans were eradicated, the habitability of Earth would only be prolonged a bit. So the idea that we just need to emit less carbon is just kicking the can.

  • Big Problem 🥀

    Jump

  • If people willingly choose to shorten their life, I don't consider it a problem.

    Now, lying and manipulating people into choosing it, similar to what the cigarette industry did, is obviously a problem.

    But at this point, everyone knows cigarettes and processed foods are unhealthy. People just don't care.

  • Big Problem 🥀

    Jump

  • Which is...?

  • Big Problem 🥀

    Jump

  • Yeah. Those problems totally didn't exist before capitalism.

  • After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence

    Jump

  • Sometimes lawyers do preliminary motions like to suppress unconstitutional search warrants or change of venue and stuff. If it's complex, it can take a while, and defense cannot request speedy trial if they're filing things, but you also don't necessarily want to forgo filing useful things.

    Also, if they violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial, you can file a habeas corpus or something and, even if you win, there's still no consequence except them shrugging and saying oops.

  • After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence

    Jump

  • Yeah, been like this for quite a while. They can drag you for a while, lose their case, shrug it off, and continue as normal.

    Meanwhile, you lost your job after your arrest, maybe even were denied bail and had to stay ~2 years in jail waiting for trial, and spent $100k on legal expenses. Winning at trial gives you no restitution for those massive losses. You're expected to also shrug it off and continue life.

  • After police used Flock cameras to accuse a Denver woman of theft, she had to prove her own innocence

    Jump

  • Important for those who don't know: police can legally lie to you. Happens all the time when they're trying to get a confession. In a discussion, they'll be like "we have your fingerprints matched and we have video of you, so it's better if you're just honest with us." But they often don't have anything which is why they're desperate for a confession.

    Weird to me that people are taking issue with the cameras more than the police work.

    The problem here is charges being made with weak evidence and officers legally allowed to lie. I had a similar experience, but she was smarter than me. I was 22 and naive, thinking I didn't need to prove my innocence because they have to prove my guilt in court (logically seemed impossible when I wasn't guilty). The presumption of innocence is a lie. And juries and judges don't operate with pure logic and reason. I had to learn the hard way, losing many years of my life.