my tip is just to greet people loudly with a smile. say good morning, talk about weather, whatever

i’ve found that most people will do as you say. just try and look away and go about their day. some people can even look mean with a face that is not inviting at all.

but if you say hi in a friendly way one day, they look at you surprised a mutter something back.

the next time you see them, they have a smile on their face and they greet you more warmly.

really this is the thing about human connection. someone has to bridge that gap. and it’s not hard to do

It’s not like these perverse incentives don’t exist without MAID

sure but it doesn’t take too much imagination to come up with some dystopian futures where human life is not treated with the sanctity that we are used to

i think maybe that’s my key objection here. it uncorks this wine bottle that cannot be resealed. we are forever fundamentally changing our relationship with death and destigmatizing the act of snuffing out a life.

i think it’s something most people have not really put much thought into the long term implications of this ideological shift

… by comparing eugenics and MAID

Definition of compare: To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken.

Nowhere did I say eugenics is similar, equal or analogous to euthanasia. You can go ahead and read the comments again, you won’t find it.

What we are comparing is the societal perception of eugenics in the early 1900s and the perception of euthanasia now.

Why did you specifically pick eugenics as an example only to then say it isn’t like MAID?

To make the point that just because something seems progressive on its face doesn’t necessarily mean it will stand the test of time. It is an example. I think it’s a good example because of how relatively horrible eugenics seems today relative to how positively it was seen in the past. Perhaps you could find other examples, I’d be happy to hear them.

All I’m saying about euthanasia/assisted suicide/whatever acronym you wanna give it- is that it must be judged on its own merits outside of groupthink. That’s what I’m attempting to do here, discuss the idea on its own merits. I think that’s what you actually have an issue with, not the feigned pearl clutching about some comparison.

I’m not comparing eugenics with euthanasia. I’m comparing the perception of what “progressive” meant back then to right now.

The point I’m trying to make is that just because something is considered progressive today does not mean it won’t be considered barbaric tomorrow. This is why I don’t immediately support something just because it appears to have a veneer of idealism. I think it through carefully.

And what do companies have to do with it?

We live in capitalist countries. Anything and everything will have money involved. Even public healthcare involves money changing hands with private contractors and such. There is no way to get around this fact. And wherever money changes hands it creates the potential for perverse incentives that we are possibly opening the door wide open for.

What I am getting at is that the length of the life has very little to do with its quality.

I see what you’re saying. I think if somebody cannot sustain life by themselves in a practical sense, then it’s a different scenario. For example someone being born in the scenario you outlined would not live without intervention. However, we are talking about the inverse. A body that would otherwise survive (at least for the near future) and we are artificially ending it.

It feels wrong to me in both scenarios. A sort of symmetry in a way.

but if someone doesn’t want to live anymore, why is it anyone’s business but their own?

I think here I need to separate two groups of people. 1) somebody who has a terminal illness and is in pain. I think in these scenarios, I am more open to the idea. 2) people who are depressed or in some sort of chronic pain who otherwise could live a full life

In the 2nd scenario, I think that suicidal thoughts is a mental illness. It’s not something healthy adjusted people think, even when they are in pain. By indulging in their desire, we are doing them a disservice. Like I brought up before, I made the analogy to addiction.

When someone is addicted, they make the conscious decision to use a drug. It’s their body, it’s their choice. They have the autonomy to do whatever they like- even if that choice is going to kill them. For example with fentanyl leading to an eventual overdose.

I think we, as a society, need to take care of these people. We need to provide them treatment and get them off the drugs. The solution isn’t just to put them in a box and give them a ton of drugs so they can use until they die. To me, it feels like we’re throwing away their human dignity in the name of individualism. We should take care of each other, not indulge each other’s worst thoughts and actions.

This is what makes me feel wrong about this.

same as the logic behind thinking abortions are wrong

I don’t consider a fetus a human life so I don’t see it as wrong. I’m not even religious, I’d say I’m “culturally Christian” sort of like most Jews I’ve met are “culturally Jewish”

The way I view it- you’re gonna be dead for the rest of eternity. Any amount of suffering you are going through now is temporary. You will eventually die.

Of course, I know it’s easy to say that when you’re not suffering in pain like your grandfather may be. So like I said, I’m not judging and I’m holding reservations on this until I’ve thought more about it.

Really, to be frank, I think people already have the option to kill themselves. They have always had that option. What I really disagree with is giving our institutions the ability to kill people. I don’t trust our healthcare systems, I don’t trust our government, and I don’t trust all the middlemen in between. They could pressure people who don’t need to do or they could rush judgements.

Typically, not friends. I’ll greet them and make small talk.

I walk my dog multiple times a day at similar hours and other neighbors do as well. So I’ll run into the same people regularly. We’ll talk a little bit. Sometimes I’ll talk a few minutes, sometimes it’s just a greeting.

I have asked on two occasions in 3 years for a neighbor to take out the dog. So generally no, but it has happened

As long as it’s something only the person themselves can authorize, either at the time or ahead of time via end-of-life planning

So let’s imagine an individual. They go through a period of 1 or 2 years where they are in pain and suicidal. They go through all the checks and procedures that we put in place and doctors clear them for execution. They end up dead.

What if that individual were going through a slump of 2 years and afterwards they would have passed through that life phase and could have been happy and had a positive experience with life again.

How could we know? This is the issue I have. It’s sort of like selling fentanyl to addicts. Yeah, it’s their body their choice. Yeah, they know the risks of overdose. But they’re addicted. They aren’t necessarily acting rationally.

I’m not trying to tell anyone they’re wrong. To be honest, I don’t really know how I feel about this in general, I’m just laying out my thoughts.

idea in theory, but rather because people were nowhere near responsible enough to administer such a program in practical application

What I find interesting is that nowadays we see eugenics in a bad light. Back then most progressive liberals endorsed it. But the Catholic church- condemned the idea of eugenics. It was seen as an affront to God’s creation. Us artificially manipulating something that should not be manipulated.

I agree with your statement above. I don’t trust our institutions. I believe people will fall through the cracks and will get killed unnecessarily. Suicide is a permanent thing that you can not undo. It’s a similar reason I have misgivings about capital punishment.

What does everyone here think about it? I know it’s typically seen as progressive, although so was eugenics in the early 1900s.

My gut feeling tells me this is wrong. I can’t judge someone for wanting to die while in pain and maybe I would think differently if it were me or my family member. But I think human life is something sacred and that we all have a duty to ourselves and to each other to live for as long as we can.

Maybe it’s just some built-in religious indoctrination from growing up Catholic, but I’m scared that this will eventually de-stigmatize suicide.

We call it “self-assisted euthanasia” but this is essentially legalizing companies to assist in suicides.

now trump will use the killing to push a hardcore agenda of police and constant surveillance to make sure it won’t happen again

see, I think if Trump did it he’s gonna go a different route

he’s gonna harness the populist support for this killer and he’s gonna go “we need universal healthcare because Americans are suffering”

and he will be seen as a hero and cement his dictatorship

First. You can’t know if it will substantially change under new management. That’s speculation

you would fundamental shift the power structure of the company. in one instance, it’s a company that ultimately answers to Chinese investors and the CCP.

in the other, it would answer to American executives and the US government.

the incentive structures are wildly different between these two. for example, if it’s an American company and the NSA comes knocking asking for data… they are under much more pressure to quietly bend over.

i think it’s absurd to say the company wouldn’t change. if the company wouldn’t change, they wouldn’t be forcing ByteDance to sell in the first place. they are forcing the sell because they need TikTok to change

Third. They can and have already been shown to subtly manipulate the algorithm to artificially elivate China’s image

yeah, they want to be able to subtly manipulate the algorithm to show pro-US propaganda instead.

forget about free speech and rights to association and all that, i guess

well, two things can be true. he could have committed serious crimes and it could be a case of the DOJ being used a political weapon.

realistically most people who do the things Hunter Biden did get away with it just fine. It’s perfectly fine to be a criminal when you are part of that group. so if he weren’t Biden’s son, he would be fine (although he also probably wouldn’t be receiving millions of dollars from Russian convicted criminals).

honestly, I think it’s one of the final nails in the coffin of our democracy.

i think a lot of people need to start paying attention to what happens in Brazil. I’ve been seeing so many parallels. We had Jan 6th, they had their own Jan 6th a year later… except a more intense version

A few years back, the president conspired with the justice department to try and put the opposition candidate in jail. the thing is - the opposition candidate was corrupt. but the whole trial was orchestrated not to seek justice, but to put the guy in jail so they would win the election.

the trump-like candidate in Brazil got attacked in a crowd. helped him win an election. Trump got shot in the ear, helped him win an election. etc

so many parallels

we’re seeing similar weaponization of the justice system here

couple of things

1. I’m assuming you mean Trump and as of now he is not the president
2. Once Trump becomes president after Jan 20th, he will be just as much my POTUS as he will be your POTUS, assuming you live in the US
3. I think you are trying to make the insinuation that somehow because I answered the question asked by OP, I am a Trumper

I spent the majority of my life as an illegal immigrant in the US. I didn’t become a citizen until well into my adulthood. I was brought here illegally at a young age

do you really think I am a Trumper? that I’m a red hat wearing Maga bible thumper? i would be a traitor to my own kind- being damned to spend eternity in the lowest level of hell freezing right next to Marco Rubio and Judas

come on man stop drinking the koolaid it’s OK to admit Biden’s son is a criminal.

Let’s see. Biden was charged with and pleaded guilty to 3 felony counts. One count of tax evasion and two counts of filing false returns. And then 3 misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay taxes

Everyone’s favorite actor Wesley Snipes got charged and convicted of 3 misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay taxes. significantly less than Biden was charged with.

he got sentenced to 36 months and served 28 months

this guy: https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/former-baltimore-police-commissioner-darryl-de-sousa-sentenced-federal-prison-failing

baltimore police commissioner served 10 months along with community service and probation. he got 3 counts of willful failure to pay taxes

so what is the typical? it really depends. there’s a lot of nuance to it. but Biden is/was facing some serious serious charges. 3+ years of prison would probably be the minimum expected

the police commissioner tried to hide about $60k of taxes from the government

Biden tried to hide $1.4M

so yeah, I’d be really grateful to dad if I were him

such a silly semantic statement

TikTok exists in its current manifestation because it is managed by ByteDance

If you sold TikTok to an American company it would immediately change into a different entity.

If we’re gonna play word games I’d call it a “anti-foreign social media ban”

now i’ll ask a question

are they banning it because it’s competition for our social media companies? so is this an economic anti-china policy designed to protect american company interests?

or are they banning it because right now TikTok is one of the larger social media platforms and it’s the only one that doesn’t have to bow down to the DOJ or DOD? i don’t think it’s a coincidence they’re banning the platform with some of the loudest leftist anti-government voices

I don’t buy the national security angle one bit. It’s like pretending the PATRIOT Act was to protect kids. It’s a veneer. Scratch off the surface and you realize if China wanted data on Americans, they can just buy it legally and cheaply from American data brokers

the topic of this thread is Biden pardoning his son, who was guilty of serious financial crimes.

you’re the one being selective in your outrage, not me. i disapprove of all these guys.

the thing with Biden though, is that the DNC frames themselves as the good guys. You know, Trump is a corrupt criminal, bla bla bla.

So when Trump does, it isn’t really a surprise. It’s what you come to expect from someone like him. I’m not approving of Trump’s pardons because I’m mentioning Biden’s

The issue is that Biden promised various times that he would not pardon his son. But now that he has nothing left to lose (his career is over, and probably the country is doomed to fascism anyways) so fuck it. Integrity is for schmucks anyway, right? i guess the moral of the story is make sure you have a powerful dad

personally I’m not even outraged about it. I’m glad he did it so that it’s more clear to everyday Americans that they’re all a bunch of crooks

there were 6 arrests for social media crimes, including the one for the woman who actually kicked off the protests by sharing a fake name about the kid who attacked the concert

but that’s beyond the point. let’s look at the comment for Kay, one that you mentioned, that caught a sentence of 38 months

“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it”

that’s the portion that says he “called for hotels to be set alight”

see, to my interpretation he was saying “i would not care if they set fire to the hotels”. in the US, this would be very strongly covered under free speech. why? because it’s an opinion. in the US you can say “I believe that [xyz] should happen” and that is a belief. an opinion- something that cannot be censored. in the UK, not so much. but even in the US, you could be held legally responsible in some way depending on the interpretation of the law

and likewise, the platform hosting that controversial speech can face legal consequences. from serious fines to potentially even criminal charges depending on the enthusiasm of the government. (governments that are getting progressively more authoritarian and trigger-happy the world over)

the point I was trying to convey is that a website like this instance of Lemmy or any other must follow rules in order to stay out of legal hot water. how can you fault them for that?

if you believe this is not the correct thing to do, then you can pay money to host a website and then you can put your ass in front of the ringer to handle potential legal consequences for not doing your part to stop it. i don’t fault the mods in the slightest.

just for reference though, let’s compare and contrast the comment that got Kay arrested and put in jail and then some comments in this thread

a lot of comments in this thread are being deleted, let me see if i can catch some before they are deleted

“This bit of news does not bother me at all”

“I mean, I thought we were gonna eat the rich, but this will do.”

“this will probably lead to the increased militarisation [sic] of ceo security teams. People can start going after their family”

using the same level of scrutiny, each one of these comments could justify a sentence in the ballpark of 38 months like what happened with Kay

this is what i mean. the internet today is changing and social media admins need to change with the times or the hammer of the law can screw them. users here spamming about mod abuse do not fully understand

mostly egalitarian troupe hominids

“mostly” is pulling a lot of weight in that statement, eh?

sure, we took care of the elderly and others in the tribe. packs of wild dogs and monkeys have been seen to do that as well. share food, etc. but if our early tribes are anything like what we see in primates, and it almost certainly was, the distribution of power was not equal.

there are monkeys with differing levels. baboons have a much stricter hierarchy than bonobos, but the structure is still there

The Haudenosaunee / Iroquois Confederacy is a good example of how to approach such a problem

I do not claim it is impossible, although I also do not believe that the exceptions disprove the rule. My favorite example personally is the brief anarchist experiment during the Spanish Civil War. The anarchists managed to at least for a short period of time replicate what I believe would be the ideal society.

the issue is that this type of society simply loses to other more authoritarian ones in a sort of Darwinist playing field. the vanguard party commies beat the anarchists and then the nationalists beat the communists. bye bye egalitarian power structure

Calling the skill and ambition distribution a pyramid is really an artifact of history, not biology

let’s say i am a foot taller than you and weigh 100 pounds more. we have just finished a hunt and we are distributing the spoils. let’s say I take double your portion. you speak up “hey I deserve an equal amount” and then I simply look at you and say “no”

what are you gonna do? my genetic makeup (along with external factors of course, like my mother’s nutrition while i was in the womb) caused me to have more physical power than you. you have no choice but to bow your head and take what you get.

that doesn’t mean it’s impossible, for example, to create alliances with others in the tribe and end up with a “social victory” and we actually see these types of behaviors in chimps. but I think that in itself is just another form of power. social intelligence, political and diplomatic maneuvering is a function of intelligence which like physical strength is a makeup genetic (as well as external, like before)

so you may be physically weaker, but mentally stronger. but in the end, power is power.

the older I get, the more I realize how deeply ingrained this structure is in our societies. I wish it weren’t, but it really is. the only way around it, I think, would require a radical restructuring of our society and would necessarily have to be just as dystopian as the opposite extreme

thin line. many people got sent to jail in England for celebrating too enthusiastically online during the anti-immigrant riots. the internet today isn’t the same as the internet 15 years ago

the rules aren’t because the mods care very much. the rules are so than the website doesn’t get taken down and/or the owners/maintainers aren’t subject to serious legal penalties