Vibin’ in my Lost River habitat.

  • 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 11th, 2023

help-circle


  • Evangelicals don’t think that gay people should not exist, they think people shouldn’t do gay stuff. I don’t know what it is with the left, and especially the alphabet mafia, but you guys have a habit of characterizing the slightest disagreement as “they are trying to erase our existence.” That’s not what’s happening. Lighten up a bit. It’s a conversation.
    Nobody is trying to strip you of any fundamental civil rights. Perhaps you’re trying to characterize the violation of other people’s fundamental civil rights as your own civil rights, and what you’re sensing is the civil rights of the innocent being protected, which sometimes necessitates not letting you do what you want to do.

    Yes, evangelicals, by definition, do not leave people alone. Yes, they are given to harassment, and they need to be checked against it. But what you see at planned parenthood isn’t your typical evangelical, those are activists. And yes, they can be violent, and that needs to be checked. People are free to hold signs, advocate, and form picket lines, but they are not free to interfere with people’s movement, hit people, or project bodily fluids on them. But again, that’s not evangelicals.

    Religion doesn’t inflict damage and pain — people do. Conversely, you don’t seem to be able to look at religion and see the structures and advancement it has enabled. It’s not that you can’t know, it’s that you don’t want to.


  • Also, “the top 1%” doesn’t do nothing. They govern and regulate the business, which is something that has to be done. They take all of the risk. You might like to socialize gains, but you don’t want any part of the losses, do you? Businesses take the majority of the gains, but suffer all of the losses.
    And no, making something does not confer ownership. If I hire you to mow my lawn, you do not then own my lawn, or my lawnmower, or the dirt. You own the consideration I paid to you to mow my lawn. Same with anything else.
    If a business has parts and makes them into products, and a worker takes the parts which are not his and makes a product, that product doesn’t magically become his because he put it together. The paycheck becomes his.


  • Right, that’s the definition in the book, but in practice, for what you find in the comments sections, my description is a better fit.
    If people can’t “own the means of production (which, by the way, every single person does),” then they are not free to associate or trade freely. Where people can associate freely, trade freely, and own property, private businesses get started. Outlawing business necessitates interfering with people’s aforementioned freedoms.
    Also, “kulaks” were a thing. If a farmer was prosperous, he was taken to the cleaners, sometimes killed, and his property taken from him. Communists reek of envy.






  • transigence@kbin.socialtoMemes@lemmy.mlCapitalists are the true supervillains
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    A “capitalist,” according to socialists, esp. Marxists, is someone who engages in anticompetitive behavior, insider trading, protection racketeering, bribery, and all manner of dubious and criminal behavior.
    Someone who just believes that people should be able to trade freely, associate freely, and keep the vast majority of what they have earned or traded for fairly are routinely called capitalists by socialists and communists to shame them for being successful.








  • I think there’s a difference here where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy, and where there is not. Out on the sidewalk, you don’t have one. Selling someone’s CC is a violation of contract law because you do have an expectation of privacy there. So, we have to be very clear, what kind of data are we talking about? “Sharon Thomas visited this site, looked at these items, spent 14.2 seconds looking at that item, then clicked on this link,” I think, is not something you can expect privacy from.
    However, there are some things I do think you have an expectation of privacy from, which is the collation and sale of personal information that the customer enters into the site for the purposes of business with that site, like the collation names with addresses, driver’s license numbers, social security numbers (or whatever local equivalents), etc. Another thing is that, and I don’t know if I’m 100% right here, but I believe that when you visit a site, even by typing an address into the address bar, the site you’re visiting is told, by your browser, what site you’re coming from. That doesn’t make sense to me, and that’s not a thing that should exist.

    Nonetheless, I don’t think the GDPR is a good fit for addressing any of these issues.


  • Why? I’m allowed to stand at a street corner and watch people walk by. I’m allowed to count them, and observe the direction they’re going. I don’t need any of their permission to do this. I’m allowed to know who they are, and I’m allowed to tell anyone I want what I saw. I’m allowed to charge money for it, and none of the people I observe are a party to this at all, so why should I need to either not do this, or tell them what I’m doing or ask for their permission to remember what I saw? How is internet tracking different?


  • You don’t have to give up your rights to privacy to get rid of the GDPR. The GDPR isn’t the reason you have any rights to privacy, nor does it actually effect any. What it effects is an entitlement to be forgotten and to move in anonymity when your identity is clearly observable and memorable. It’s an overreach, and some people don’t feel like dealing with it.