Windex007

I could get behind you on this if the post was saying that all grocery stores must have that limitation. In the subway example, it'd be like saying that the only labour that exists is being a subway driver. The calculus changes when, like you said, it's mandatory.

Oh my god I'm still stewing over that exact same post. It's been like a week.

Fine. The person operating the subway train. Should they be drunk? Should they have needed to demonstrate competency in operating a subway?

That's entirely true.

But that's still a double-edged sword we're playing with.

If you want to run towards a an "inevitable conclusion" in the one direction (resegregation... undesirable... are you even alluding to genocide?)

I think it's fair to do the same in the opposite direction too. Is there no lower bound for human interaction and behavior? Is it wrong to set boundaries for how people treat you?

I like how hyper aware people are for things that could be turned into an avenue for bad things. I think that's actually more than half the battle. Doesn't always mean you toss the idea outright, you just know that you gotta watch out.

I, for one, am in favor of a minimal demonstrated set of awareness and capacity to operate a motor vehicle. I also am in favor of not letting people drive drunk. Someone might say this will inevitably turn into a tool of racism. And guess what, THEY'D BE RIGHT! But, the solution probably isn't to ban cars, or to let anyone drive with no rules of the road and drive drunk.

That's an interesting perspective.

In the "nature vs nurture" debate, I don't think I've heard anyone so emphatically proclaim: "Niether!"

Might depend on the client you're using. The mobile app is use has a distinction between posts and comments

Make sure your lemmy settings are set to show the instances of users. If you see a braindead take from an .ml, you're not talking with a good faith actor. Don't take the bait.

They just take whatever position advances China's geopolitical presence the most.

This is exactly why I explicitly said you should reject the explanation of genetics, even if learned behaviors have a tendency to be passed from primary caregivers to children.

I don't subscribe to the doomerism mentality and I think it's counter productive precisely because of the argument laid out in Idiocracy

But people sharing your memes doesn't mean they are smarter.

I went to great lengths in my previous point to say exactly that. Was that still unclear?

I'm maybe being unfair to say idiots are having more kids.

It is a growing case where people who score relatively higher in awareness of world events to choose not to have kids at all. Between the environment and, well, gestures broadly that group of people is choosing to not have kids.

Calling people idiots or not, that's overly broad. I understand that. There are material negative pressures felt by people who value understanding the state of the world, that are not felt by those who don't.

It only bothers me when people are hung up on the genetics aspect.

People (broadly statistically) tend to grow up to be similar to thier parents in terms of values. Not so much because of DNA, but because of how they were raised.

The premise holds even if you toss away anything to do with biology. (Which you should)

Idiots tend to have idiot kids because they raised them in idiot households, and idiots tend to have more kids.