KombatWombat
joined 2 years ago
It sounds like that comment chain is discussing two different things. First is the piefed default block list, which admins can edit as they please for their instance. Hexbear and lemmygrad are on there.
Second is the lemmy slur filter, which used to be applied across all of lemmy and was not configurable. That may have changed, but it isn't clear how. But regardless, that doesn't seem like a complaint about piefed, unless I am misunderstanding.
I am not sure where the "non-lethal" part is quoted from. The linked order form uses "less-lethal", which is more accurate. It feels like an intentional misquote.
It's more about stability. Yes, the piece of paper does not have any more authority than we choose to grant it, but giving credence to the law consistently lets people understand what to expect from society. They see it effectively determining people's behavior, and can feel safer so long as it looks out for their needs. In this way it acts as a stronger barrier to future bad behavior.
But when people are able to disregard the law when it doesn't seem like a big deal, it makes it easier for bad actors to circumvent it later on. A rule doesn't mean much when you just ignore it whenever it becomes inconvenient. One day it may just be slacking on a Miranda warning, but that can spiral into much larger trespasses on people's rights if the latter are no more illegal than the former. And so a threat to one part is a threat to the whole.
It's also worth pointing out that the law isn't expected to ever be perfect, or static. It should update to better reflect the values of society over time. And there are legal ways for people to avoid punishment even when they violate a law. A jury can refuse to convict a defendant. The president can pardon someone. Plea deals and prosecutor discretion can mean a charge is dropped. The convicted person can appeal a guilty verdict based on due process violations. A statute of limitations or other restriction can render them immune.
For Lincoln's blockade specifically, the Supreme Court ruled it as constitutional when it was challenged, and Congress later retroactively approved of it. So it was legal, based on the way we define what that means.
It needs more porn to really take off, just like what happened with the internet.
I read it as a young adult after hearing several others online say it was their favorite book or strongly impacted them. I thought Holden was a whiny kid who did need help, but also really lacked personal accountability for someone who dedicated so much time to calling others phonies. That's ok, of course. Protagonists should be at least somewhat flawed, and it's especially reasonable if they are in the process of growing up.
But I mainly hated the narrative structure. I'm just going off of what I remember for all this, but it seemed like Holden just wandered between a series of significant encounters for the entire story without anything going anywhere. Other than >!the sister and a second encounter with the nuns,!< the characters were just discarded shortly after being introduced. Any scene could have been a good foundation for the rest of the story's development, but he just wanders somewhere else before all but the barest of conflict resolution happens. IIRC the furthest we got was at the end where >!he gets the idea to leave society behind, but his sister says she would miss him and asks him not to, so he just says "ok"!<. It felt like the entire story was the author just pranking the audience about potential character development before yoinking it away with a laugh.
As others have said, we can look to other countries for examples of health insurance being done well. Insurance serves an important function for things that would otherwise create large debt unpredictably. It just doesn't work well as a for-profit non-utility industry.
I would say the main issue for the US is the actual healthcare providers charging so much. Insurance companies do enable that in a sense by allowing people to get healthcare that otherwise would be unaffordable. Members are insulated from the cost and simply want their desired care approved, so hospitals take advantage of this by charging increasingly ludicrous amounts. And since at minimum 80% of health insurance premium revenue must go to paying member services, this means coverage costs inevitably spiral.
Insurance companies disappearing would eventually lead to lower prices since patients would no longer be able to afford healthcare, but that's obviously not a good solution. Government regulating the price of healthcare more directly would allow insurance to be both cheaper and more optional.
Williams syndrome is a rare condition in humans that causes them to have particular facial features, a very friendly and extroverted personality, and some intellectual disability. It occurs when a certain chunk of genes are deleted in development.
Dogs have an equivalent region in their DNA, and friendliness in dogs and wolves seems to correspond to which variant they have for one of the relevant genes. So our domestication efforts are kind of like breeding the closest thing we can manage to a disability into them.
https://www.aip.org/inside-science/rare-human-syndrome-may-explain-why-dogs-are-so-friendly
If anything, recognizing and defending claims of ownership primarily benefits those who have hoarded under capitalism. It's much harder to accumulate wealth when you have to personally dedicate resources to defending all that you have. And so capitalists would be particularly interested in discouraging theft.
view more: next ›
Tropes can easily become cliches if done poorly, but in essence they're just common concepts in storytelling. The idea of having a protagonist struggling with finding what lines they won't cross, and accepting what consequences result, can make for a really compelling internal conflict. And having a no-kill rule is often a practical one for longer series in particular.
Imagine if Batman's rogue gallery couldn't be re-used unless the writers had them always be able to get away when their plans are foiled. When Batman instead sends them to jail, they can be shelved for a while without making Batman look very selectively incompetent at actually catching criminals. Instead, it's justified as a principle that he upholds, while giving the writer opportunities to also show character growth for villains. And if you argue he should focus on the greater good by permanently eliminating threats, then it can be viewed as a character flaw that gives him depth.