Let’s say you want to find what will be an “old person’s name” in 2060. What you do is subtract 60 from 2060 => 2000. Then go to google and type in “most popular baby names year 2000”
pick the first 10 or so and those will be “old person’s name”
I think federal government probably sent a pretty please over to reddit HQ to censor this.
They’re afraid of it fomenting further dissent. It’s a delicate situation when the plebs are upset. A little bit is OK, in fact preferable. But too much can lead to a chain reaction that cannot be controlled.
it’s a curiosity thing. i think there’s a value to seeing it, although not regularly seeing it.
humans are capable of some horrifying brutality. we live in nice little perfect bubbles and we don’t even realize it.
for example, it’s very easy to catch yourself cheering for war in the name of idealism. but see a couple dozen war videos and you realize what it really means. i think your statement honestly holds true for any type of morbid type of content. for example Crime and Punishment- dissecting the psychology of a double homicide. you could say “why would you read 500 pages of dense literature about someone murdering two innocent people?”
it’s because that’s part of the human experience, for better or worse.
similar to interrogation videos on YouTube. Even poetry like Suicide in the Trenches
I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.
In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you’ll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
I feel instructing people to do things goes into the action category.
exactly. that’s how US law works. in England, the state has much broader powers to arrest you depending on your speech. Like for example, the first statement I made
“i believe all [plural form of random ethnic slur] should be brutally murdered”
a very similar post on twitter got someone sentenced to 2 years in jail over in England just a few months ago. let search around and find the direct quote…
i found it
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it”
My interpretation is that this is a belief. He didn’t explicitly instruct anyone to do anything. He said, in other words - “if people set fire to all the muslim immigrants, i wouldn’t care” or basically “i would be happy with people setting fire to all muslim imimgrants”
in England, that’s a crime. in the US, you have to be much more explicit. You have to
a) specifically instruct people to do something “everyone, attack that person in the red hat”
b) hold the belief that your statement has a real chance to followed. so for example, if you right now say “hey kava, beat your wife” you almost certainly could not be charged in the US because a reasonable person would not immediately beat their wife because of a statement like that
c) it has to be immediate - so you have to say something and it happen in the very near future. so if you write “let’s stab all the [ethnic slurs]” and then someone reads that 3 months into the future- you can’t be held liable.
So I believe the US laws, in this case, are so much better than English laws.
The US does a lot of shit wrong. So many things. But on speech? I think best in the world.
edit: there’s more on this topic if you’re interested: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
I appreciate the personal anecdote. I believe in cases like the one you detailed, assisted suicide is not only morally justified but I think perhaps even obligatory. It does sound horrific and I can only imagine how horrific it feels to be that person going through that period of time.
When I say duty to live, I’m more speaking to those who are not terminally ill. Another user brought up a good point where what we need to do is look at the death % rates and see how they shifted. For example, if 20% of people now die from assisted suicide, do 20% less people die from cancer and other similar diseases? Then assisted suicide is for all intents and purposes relegated to terminally ill patients.
If the number, however, is let’s say 15% less people die from cancer, that would imply 5% more people are dying because of assisted suicide than would have otherwise died. This is the part I’m scared of.
Again, I appreciate your comment. It must have been a profound thing to witness. For good and for bad.
things not in the physical realm should have consequences not in the physical realm
I mean, it depends. I think the current laws in the US are more or less fine.
For example, if I send you a death threat through an online message, it should be equivalent to me sending you a death threat in any other fashion.
So I’m not a total absolutist, but I am a strong free-speech proponent.
I think saying something like “i believe all [plural form of random ethnic slur] should be brutally murdered” is an expression of a belief. it’s a horrific belief, yes, but it’s a belief. I think it constitutes as free speech and therefore the government cannot prosecute
however let’s say I’m a musician at a concert and i see a guy in the crowd and point and yell to the crowd “hey everybody, attack that [singular form of ethnic slur] and rip his [religious apparel] off” - that isn’t a belief. that is an incitement to violence.
that should be a crime.
in England, both the first and the 2nd are crimes. here in the US, it’s only the 2nd
yeah it’s a weird time. over in England during the anti-immigrant riots some people got sent to jail for inciting violence for some twitter messages. If you actually read the messages and compare it to the rhetoric coming out of many people about this CEO, many people would be sent to jail if we were following the same standard.
obviously the US is not England and we have free speech protections- but people really should exercise caution
Trump’s base is more nuanced, I think. If he starts the rhetoric bashing “big pharma” and “corrupt CEOs” then I think his base will fall in line.
That’s the thing with Trump. His policies don’t actually need to be logically coherent with traditional GOP values.
For example, GOP has historically championed low regulation, low taxes, and free market capitalism. This has been hammered home until it’s become almost an autonomic verbal tic or religious phrase (“inshallah” “god bless our troops”)
But then he comes and he loudly and repeatedly pushes for tariffs - instating large and broad taxes that restrict free market capitalism. And what happens? His base cheers him on for it.
Or for example GOP has historically been supportive of illegal immigrants. Look at Ronald Reagan, another quasi-religious symbol of the GOP. He gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Legalized them and supported immigration. Why? Because it’s good for free market capitalism.
What about Trump? He goes the other way. Wants to restrict the import of labor as much as possible, hurting free market capitalism.
See what I mean? It doesn’t actually matter what his real policies are. That’s what I find fascinating about him. I think he has the power to take universal healthcare and actually implement it in this country if he wanted to. And that it would cement his legacy permanently.
Which to me, is something a megalomaniac would want
Never say anything you aren’t willing to stand behind. Because it won’t go away. And with authoritarian regimes coming to power… you gotta be cognizant of the potential consequences
But generally, I agree with you. The further we get away from groupthink the better we are for it. When we self-censor out of fear of disapproval we are perpetuating the cycle and making it more likely the next person doesn’t speak their mind.
Just because everyone believes something is right, does not mean it is. The majority has been wrong in the past and it will be wrong in the future.
am i mistaken? are we on a website for discussion in a thread about the topic of conversation or are we in a hospice ward for terminal cancer patients?
i haven’t made a single reply to someone unsolicited in this thread. again, you have nothing meaningful to say so you default to vague pearl clutching.
i will absolutely speak about abortion to someone if the topic of conversation is abortion. i will tell someone how i feel- if it is solicited. i support abortion, personally. i spent a good hour arguing with some religious people at an anti-abortion booth on my campus when i was in college.
I think the smart move, from Trump, would be to announce he supports public healthcare. That the American people have spoken and bla bla bla, he’s the voice of the people. He would immediately jump 15 points in popularity.
of course a lot of people would lose money and there’s an ingrained power structure that will fight that tooth and nail. but Trump has dismantled and taken over powerful existing power structures before (ie the GOP).
this would help him if he really does want to radically change the country into a psuedo-fascist oligarchy thing which seems to be Musk’s and Thiel’s goal
Those just glorify the military industrial complex
watching a soldier’s legs get blown up by a drone with 3 dead soldiers around him pick up his rifle and shoot himself in the head isn’t really what I would call a show of glory
i feel privileged to be able to see war footage. this hasn’t really been possible for most of human history. you can look and see the brutality of war and what it really means to “die for your country”
i don’t agree with censoring war videos. i’m glad that reddit abstains from this. i’m certain they will be banning it in the future. in think in near future we will not get any media outside of a giant firewall much like China
ok please enlighten me Freud. can you show me where I implied that my opinion should be law and what my biases are? besides the potential ones I mentioned such as potential religious indoctrination from growing up catholic and the fact that i may think differently should i be in that position. what other ones are impacting my thinking?
MAID is the ultimate expression of bodily autonomy
shooting yourself in the head is the ultimate expression of bodily autonomy.
an institutionalized system of euthanasia is something else entirely. you are requesting that the government/healthcare institution kill you.
Except you are not. You haven’t actually discussed MAID itself other than saying it generally makes you feel icky
i’ve written near a dozen comments about this at this point. i haven’t mentioned eugenics once except to make the comparison of the progressive appearance in the 1900s. you write yet don’t read
Can you explain why you’re against MAID without referring to eugenics or any other historical issue?
read any of my dozen comments where i discuss this with people who actually address the conversation instead of nitpick on some imaginary offense. my primary concerns are two fold
a system of institutionalized killing is necessarily bound to our institutions. it does not take much imagination to come up with scenarios where there are perverse incentives for the people involved to encourage or coerce people into agreeing to being euthanized. ever heard “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism”? it’s because everything is bound up in profit-seeking and exploitation. whatever we bring into our society will be infected by this. are you prepared for there to be private healthcare practices (aka private businesses) encouraging people to kill themselves for financial gain?
this is an ideological shift from “treating life as sacred” to “treating life as expendable” and that will come with consequences down the road. i believe when we as a society stop viewing life as sacred this will inevitably have knock-off effects down the road that result in a lack of human dignity. everything we do this decade determines what we will do in the next decade. you destigmatize something now and you shift the bounds of acceptable conversation in the future. we are playing with fire here so I think it’s wise to tread carefully
First off, using the word “execution” is pretty loaded. I just wanted to put that out there, especially because you’re, “not trying to tell anyone they’re wrong.”
well that’s one of the things i take issue with. the ideological approach we take to this. we start using nice sound names and acronyms - euphemisms- and it can sort of hide what we are doing. the words we use matter. unrelated tangent- they’ve done a study in the US. you ask people whether or not they support a “death tax” and a majority will say of course not. you ask them whether they support an “inheritance tax” and all of a sudden support is flipped. do you see what I mean? the language matters.
and the fact that everyone that we are coming up with these acronyms like “MAID” (which is new to me, by the way. I’ve only ever heard doctor assisted suicide up until this point) i think shows that as a society we are trying to avoid some of the conversation about this. euphemisms disguise what we are really doing and they disguise what we really feel. this may be for good intentions (empathy or what have you) but road to hell is paved with good intentions
It’s not just on the individual who is making this decision, but health care professionals who use their professional opinion on the mental state of the individual. If a person is suicidal, generally a mental health care professional is involved.
and doctors in the past have cleared the compulsory sterilization of individuals in Canada (and many other places). i have immediate family members who are doctors. some of the beliefs they hold would offend many in this thread. just because they went through medical school and trained and have above average intelligence- does not mean they will necessarily be on the right side of history.
I think these are all good reasons to be skeptical, but I also don’t think they’re reasons to completely prevent access.
i understand this. someone is suffering in pain in a way that life is unlivable. they are terminal so they are going to die anyway. I would not be able to deny them death if they is what they wanted. I wouldn’t. So I’m not even saying we shouldn’t have this policy. I just think if we do implement it, it needs to be limited to those types of cases specifically. Once we start moving into people who aren’t terminal and people who are suffering from mental health exclusively, I think we would have opened a box we can’t close.
especially because you’re, “not trying to tell anyone they’re wrong.”
i’m honest to God just trying to look into this at a deeper level. I try to be civil, I try to be empathetic with those who have suffering loved ones (I have also had suffering loved ones, in fact I have some going through something right now). I’m amazed at the level of response I’ve gotten to my off-hand comment. I’ve never gotten a fraction of the response on any lemmy comment I’ve written before.
I fear we are not ready as a society for this. that this may open the door for horrific consequences further down the road.
my tip is just to greet people loudly with a smile. say good morning, talk about weather, whatever
i’ve found that most people will do as you say. just try and look away and go about their day. some people can even look mean with a face that is not inviting at all.
but if you say hi in a friendly way one day, they look at you surprised a mutter something back.
the next time you see them, they have a smile on their face and they greet you more warmly.
really this is the thing about human connection. someone has to bridge that gap. and it’s not hard to do
It’s not like these perverse incentives don’t exist without MAID
sure but it doesn’t take too much imagination to come up with some dystopian futures where human life is not treated with the sanctity that we are used to
i think maybe that’s my key objection here. it uncorks this wine bottle that cannot be resealed. we are forever fundamentally changing our relationship with death and destigmatizing the act of snuffing out a life.
i think it’s something most people have not really put much thought into the long term implications of this ideological shift
… by comparing eugenics and MAID
Definition of compare: To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken.
Nowhere did I say eugenics is similar, equal or analogous to euthanasia. You can go ahead and read the comments again, you won’t find it.
What we are comparing is the societal perception of eugenics in the early 1900s and the perception of euthanasia now.
Why did you specifically pick eugenics as an example only to then say it isn’t like MAID?
To make the point that just because something seems progressive on its face doesn’t necessarily mean it will stand the test of time. It is an example. I think it’s a good example because of how relatively horrible eugenics seems today relative to how positively it was seen in the past. Perhaps you could find other examples, I’d be happy to hear them.
All I’m saying about euthanasia/assisted suicide/whatever acronym you wanna give it- is that it must be judged on its own merits outside of groupthink. That’s what I’m attempting to do here, discuss the idea on its own merits. I think that’s what you actually have an issue with, not the feigned pearl clutching about some comparison.
I sleep 8 hours a night and wake up at the same time every day. I’ve found that as long as my sleep schedule is consistent and reliable, my energy levels are fine. It doesn’t really matter how busy I am throughout the day.
Once the sleep schedule gets out of whack (I sleep in too much, or have to wake up at 3am for work trip) then it takes a good 5 days or so to go back to normal