Ask Lemmy

If you count humans as animals then cocaine and clothing from companies like Temu and Shein aren't vegan.

Cocaine manufacturing and distribution is full of human exploitation and suffering. Using it should go against the vegan ethos of avoiding consumption of things that are the product of exploitation. Similar to honey, milk, or eggs.

Similarly, Shien and Temu make nearly all of their products using slave labor in terrible working conditions using dangerous chemicals without any precautions.

I think people should pay for software, including open source software. Don’t get me wrong, I love open source. I’ve probably spent multiple thousands of hours writing and maintaining open source software. That’s only because I have free time and like to do it. I’ve made $0 doing it, even though several companies use my software. If it started affecting my life negatively, I’d have to stop.

We pay for things like video games, but it’s incredibly difficult to make money in open source, even though the time investment can be just as much for the developers. I guess my point is, if there’s an open source project you like or you think is valuable, toss the devs a donation.

The model I like is free for personal use/paid for commercial use, but doing that in open source is practically impossible as a small dev. Big tech companies should be required to support the open source devs they rely on, imho.

A society's moral character is best judged by how it treats its least, not by how it treats the average, or median, or best.

There is virtue in minding your own business. If it doesn't effect you directly you don't need an opinion on it and you certainly shouldn't share it or expect anyone who is effected to care what you think. You're a bad person if you support people who want to use force to control how other people live their lives. You're evil if you would use force to control how someone else lives their life.

Prostitution should be legalized everywhere. With regulation of course to ensure the protection of the workers and clients.

Freedom of religion is important and religions shouldnt receive special treatment

Animals don't exist for us to use. They aren't ours. Outside of survival scenarios, it's wrong to eat animals or take things like milk or eggs from animals. It's fucked up.

ITT: lots of morals that most people (here) agree with. Predictable.

The purpose of an education is to learn how to think, not how to work.

A lot of universities are being treated as training centers for the world of work - and this is not ok.

People shouldn't be jumping through hoops to conceive their own child while there are already children in need of a home

Victims should be the ones to decide whether forgiveness is deserved. no one else.

Monogamy is very often an extremely toxic factor in many relationships.

The free movement of people is a human right!

Note that capital is free to go whatever it wants to.

Your feelings are not facts.

Being offended, doesn't mean you're in the right and the other person is in the wrong.

Just because your religion says something (or claims it does), doesn't put you in the right.

All drugs should be legal, but bodily autonomy is to high a purity test for everyone on planet earth.

Admit it everyone, capitalists will not let us live in peace. At least let me get high to numb the pain of existence.

I'll just keep being a nuisance here and say it. I genuinely do like this instance but I can't make sense of the infatuation for the AI here when isn't this part of the problem? AI "art" generators are fundamentally wrong and harmful to the artistic community. Artists are part of the nerd crowd too. We studied like crazy to hone our craft. There are a few traumatic historic events that the use of AI art theft machines harken back to. In more recent history, fascist regimes have tried to erase art altogether, or covet it for themselves. The same can be said for colonists, and it was to our chagrin a casually accepted part of Western culture to incorporate all sorts of bastardized appropriations of beautiful things they'd seen that didn't belong to them. It's just something to think about.

At the end of the day, people are thoughtlessly using a machine that takes the hard work of countless artists (of all different walks of life, different classes, backgrounds, mediums) to spit out uncanny, empty slop.

I'll keep saying it. And it may take years to undo this shit if ever. That's fine.

Okay, a pretty decent amount of people feel similarly as I do on this topic, but here I just feel like an outlier at times due to the number of pro-AI slop communities. Then again, I also notice that only a handful of the same people run those communities and contribute to them. I guess it's because we're a smaller community and I'm also a negative Nancy, so I tend to notice those glaring issues more here. I think it's important to get this message across on here, because why do we want to emulate even one ounce of Musk's energy here? Fuck that. Reddit already has their Midjourney sh-stuff. And they are not like us. So, we should strive to be better than Reddit.

We need stricter social rules again in a lot of areas and children need to be brought up stricter again. Now I don't mean we should get back to being in other people's business in regards to what they wear or who they love. But let's go back to shunning people for littering. Teach kids to sit still and be quiet in certain spaces like public transport or restaurants. Ostracize people who are loud and disruptive in public. Let's just implement some stricter social rules again.

To quote Margaret Thatcher, "a man who doesn't own a car by the age of 26 can count himself a failure."

I heavily disagree with that statement. Everyone has reasons not to drive. From disability, to cities being designed for walking and public transport, to being opposed to the pollution that is caused as a result of it, to not wanting to participate in traffic congestion, to not being able to fucking afford one, to being so bad at driving that you just give up after failing that license test multiple times, or to simple personal preference. Are all these people failures apparently? How does that make sense? Well, I guess the people who give up after failing the license test are, but everyone else??

The solution to the Tolerance Paradox is the Ender solution.

Accept everyone. But the moment one group calls for the violence against any other group, they should be wiped out with overwhelming force to the last. Any group willing to spew hate, is to be culled. Either they learn to accept every other group, or they go extinct.

It worked with the Nazis. It worked with the khmer rouge. It worked with Mussolini. It worked with the apartheid regime.

In turn i also believe that the Ender Solution is the solution to bullying. Fight back, break their noses, gouge out an eye. Make the bully regret even looking at you. As an asian migrant in 1990s Australia in all white school, the first bully was also the last.

From my point of view of life, it feels like the belief of "Do unto others as you would like others to do to you" is no longer something most people seem to believe in.

I support assisted dying and the right for people with terminal illness or in pain to end their lives.

But the idea that we shouldn't intervene if someone young and in good physical health wants to die just doesn't sit right with me. Like, if someone told me they were going to end their life and I didn't do something to try and stop it, I don't think I'd ever be able to sleep at night.

I strongly believe that you can still live a fulfilling life even if you suffer from poor mental health issues.

Feel free to disagree, but that's just me.

You can't direguard anyone's humanity. Even billionaires. There are no universally bad people, negativity is always relational.

Though I do think you can weigh a billionaire's comfort against the folks they made billions from, and that may just be potent enough for the death penalty.

However, I don't think punishment is a humane solution. Rehabilitation and integration are always preferred. Though again, some folks integrate best as corpses.

Pacifism.

The overwhelming majority of people, no matter where they sit in terms of culture, religion, and politics, see total nonviolence as a naive position.

But it’s among my most deeply held beliefs.

Can you explain what IP is? Abbreviations don't mean anything if you don't know it.

Genocide is bad.

It's promoted by hegemony throughout my culture. Both "parties" support genocide almost completely. If I even ask for a non-genocidal candidate, I'm attacked by libs. It's a disgusting society.

The death penalty should be used only for white collar crimes and violations of the public trust. These crimes have the greatest impact on society, and usually have the strongest evidence reducing the chances of a wrongful conviction.

Paying for your porn is righteous (assuming the money goes to the actual actors).

I think individualism has gone too far. We pander too much to each person’s individual rights, and not each person’s individual responsibilities. I’m not talking about human rights here, I’m not talking about labour rights or any of the genuinely important stuff.

I’m talking about the self important experiences of the individual. The idea that someone has the right to believe whatever they want without responsibility to those around them. The most obvious answer is anti-vaxxers that spread literal lies. Whatever about vaccine hesitancy when there is legitimate peer reviewed medical potential for harm, there are levels of hesitancy. But when it goes to the point of fabricating data and spreading lies that will ultimately only cause harm to society, then in that case I’m ok with those people having any free speech rights voided, including full legal culpability for the harm it causes, akin to medical terrorism.

Where established data shows that people are contributing harm to society, contradicting scientifically proven data, and a person deliberately continues to spread misinformation when they are informed that they are causing harm, then they clearly do not care for the protection of the community, they should have forego societal protections for themselves, rights to free speech, rights to own property, and where necessary incarceration. If you’re in a position of power/authority or have specific training in the field, then you should face exponentially greater legal consequences for this deliberate harm.

Many people may agree with the general principles of this sentiment but as a society we are not ready to have that conversation, because the first person to be locked up would trigger a mass protest not widespread agreement. All because we have permitted individualism to far overpower the importance of collectivism. Rights should not be absolute they should always be coupled to responsibilities. Even if that responsibility is simply not to cause deliberate harm to others.

And the idea that someone’s beliefs about reality are somehow important to uphold. That the person above believes they are not doing harm, despite being told otherwise, that this idea should hold any weight in court is wrong. People should be informed of their ignorance and measurable reality is the only true reality that should be taken into account . Just like ignorance of the law is not a defence, ignorance of reality should not be a defence.

If a person is spreading misinformation that causes harm, they should be served a legal notice that outlines that they have been “judged to have been causing harm to society by spreading information that is adjudicated as false and harmful by an sanctioned and independently operated committee, whose ruling has been further agreed upon by a plurality of specialist training bodies in the relevant field. The only entities who contradict this societally important and data derived ruling are those that mean harm to society or those without the relevant knowledge base to make any informed statements on the matter. As of this point you will be treated as the former now that you have been served notice that the information you are spreading is factually incorrect and harmful. If you continue to spread this misinformation you sacrifice a portion or all of your rights afforded to you by this society. Your assets can be seized, you may be incarcerated, and your access to any and all communication with other humans may be partially or entirely withheld. This is a measure to combat information terrorism.”

Civil liberties are a privilege not an inalienable right.

You might think this sounds dystopian but it’s my answer to your question. Obviously it needs baked in failsafes to stop a small few individuals from corrupting it for authoritatian abuse. But just because something could be hypothetically abused doesn’t make it a bad idea. You just need to insulate against the abuse.

Religious people who push their fake shit on you.

Can you just NOT!

If I wanted an imaginary friend WTF makes you think I'd pick your asshole POS of a god?

That was rhetorical.