• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 1st, 2024

help-circle





  • You’re definitely on the right track.

    The only actual job of the police is to file crime reports.

    They do not prevent crime. Protect innocents. Make people show up for court etc. They have no obligation to stop a crime in progress or protect someone being hurt, even if they’re standing right there and could stop it.

    Anything in the justice system that you value is either done by someone else, or actually isn’t done at all.


  • This is a good example of keeping your mind so open your brain falls out.

    No. The article doesn’t explicitly say what party he planned to vote for. That’s right.

    Almost all instances of election violence have been committed by the same party - even the attempted assassinations. I’m sure there could be examples of violence from the other party but I’m genuinely struggling to think of any.

    So if a reasonable person hears someone in an election line was violent they’re not going to think “well there are crazies on both sides, so yaneverknow.”




  • Bertuccio@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldA step too far
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    Also Brown definitely wouldn’t have been the first to enforce faux tradition.

    That shit has existed forever and the more meaningless, the more militant.

    Ketchup on hotdogs. Folded pizza. Seafood with red wine.

    All said with more authority yet far less evidence than anything Alton Brown ever said.




  • The concept of the tragedy of the commons existed centuries before Hardin. He just uses that concept to justify an unsound conclusion and the concept would exist whether he wrote his paper or not.

    Every time someone references it, they’re referencing that concept that really does affect communal resources, and probably have no idea what argument Hardin ever made based on it.

    The beginning of the paper lays out the idea very well and I use it to teach people to treat shared resources respectfully, but tell them not to bother reading the conclusion.






  • Harris chose to do something immoral because “it was the law”, or it benefited her, or whatever - and you can expect her to continue doing that.

    You still have to vote for her, but you also have to be realistic about who you’re actually voting for.

    Republicans are the party who holds their candidates up without criticism - and Dems put up Kamala now exactly because Democrats were criticizing Biden - and even though she’s one of the worst candidates they’ve put up in years, she’s still far more electable than Biden.

    So yes. You need to both vote for and criticize Harris. It’s the least immoral choice.