• 2ugly2live@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I don’t know if this is a hot take, but I think people need to stop basing their lives off of celebrities/influencers. We equate wealth with some hidden knowledge, when they’re just people. Sometimes really fucking stupid people who happen to have a profitable talent. Next time some tries to sell you something or teach you something, ask yourself if this person is even an authority/knowledgeable on what they’re talking about. I’ve gotten in the habit of mentally going “and you are?” when I get new information. Sometimes you find our that person is a leader in their field. Sometimes it’s just some terminally online teenager.

    Hotter Take: I think black people put too much stock in celebrities and what they’ll do for the black community. You don’t get freakishly wealthy being a sweetheart. Jay Z is not going to save us. And our blind loyalty has us supporting subpar performances and people because we “have to support” and it keeps fucking us over. No, I’m not supporting this business just because it’s black owned if the service/quality sucks (especially since black owned goods tend to be more expensive).

  • csolisr@hub.azkware.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    @TehBamski Most entertainment is produced in abusive environments, promotes positively evil people to become famous, and twists the legal system through in such a way that it enables surveillance and erodes ownership rights. But barely anyone is willing to boycott it.

  • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Parents’ jobs aren’t to protect their kids. It’s to make sure that their kids are sufficiently prepared for the world when the kids grow up.

    There seems to be this rising trend of parents being overprotective of their children, even to the point of having parental controls enabled for children even as old as the late teens. My impression has always been that these children are too sheltered for their age.

    I grew up in the “age of internet anarchism,” where goatse was just considered a harmless prank to share with your friends and liveleaks was openly shared. Probably not the best way of growing up, to be fair, but I think we’ve swung so hard into the opposite direction that a lot of these children, I feel, are living in their own little bubbles.

    To some degree, it honestly makes sense to me why the younger generation nowadays is so willing to post their lives on the internet. When that’s the only thing you can do on the internet, that’s what you’ll do

    • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Parents jobs arent to protect their kids

      I get you don’t mean this so broadly but you lose all nuance with this statement.

      Protect them from every minor mistake or risk that could ever possibly happen, and smothering them? Sure.

      Someone about to stab your kid? Protect them from predators? Protect them from various risks and hazards in life which every parent should be teaching them?

      • dont get into strangers cars
      • dont let strangers into the house
      • look both ways when crossing the road
      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        It wasn’t the comment that lacked nuance; just your reading.

        All the stuff you added went without saying.

        • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Parents jobs arent to protect their kids.

          What the fuck else does that mean? If you want to believe you can read minds and assume what a person is talking about, whatever.

          But if someone makes a statement, maybe take it at face value rather than “ah yes they must mean something else”

          fucking idiot

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m pretty autistic, so you’re not allowed to write this off as “people using magic communication I can’t understand because I’m smart” or whatever your model of the current situation is.

            When a person says it is not a parent’s job to protect their kids, you already know what it means. It’s right there in your three bullet point.

            • dont get into strangers cars
            • dont let strangers into the house
            • look both ways when crossing the road

            If a parent’s job were protecting their kids, these would read:

            • Don’t let your kids near roads or cars
            • Don’t give your kids control over the door
            • Don’t let your kids cross roads

            Like, if I was given care of a dog for a week while their owners went on vacation, and my job were to “protect the dog”, I wouldn’t be putting the dog in any of the situations where its own choices were the source of its safety.

            Are you ready to stop pretending that you don’t see?

            • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              The first line of my reply literally says I dont think this is what you mean, BUT …. I very clearly stated I assume that isnt exactly what the commenter meant. The rest of my comment is to clarify what the poster defined as “protection”.

              If someone came up to me and asked protect something, contextually yes obviously I understand that.

              That isnt the situation here. The comment chain is someone with a “hot take” on what “parents protecting children” means. It being a hot take I feel it is completely valid to put aside any assumption that the commenter is talking about “well obviously I mean protect them from x y z”. Because its a potentially unpopular hot take. It’s not a common idea in society.

              Unless you can read minds it is very possible this commenter meant it literally. IE how kids are raised in the film 300. “Heres a stick. go fight a wolf kid”.

              Im not writing it off. I assumed what they meant but followed up for clarification. Did you just expect replies to be “agree” or “disagree” with zero further discussion?

    • RozhkiNozhki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I have recently learned that the new helicopter parent type is the snowplow parent - these are the ones that not only shield their kids from the world, but also fully manage their lives for them. I work for the University of California and seeing how absolutely helpless these kids are is scary.

      • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m in the UC system as well. It’s both concerning and amusing how much college students nowadays go to their parents for permission on minor things. I get it, to some degree. Respect for your parents and all that. But some degree of autonomy would be helpful at that age

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          If you’ve spent any amount of time among people who went to / are in college in their early 20s, and people who were working in their late teens and early twenties, it becomes clear that college arranges for the students to have a managed-for-them life to a degree that I actually think is severely harmful to them. It’s basically a big day care. Education is fuckin fantastic, I’m not saying it’s not, but the nature of the way your life is organized within it to me I think is very bad for people.

          Like yes you know integrals, very good, but e.g. I spoke to a guy who had not paid his phone bill for months, who somehow still had phone service but was genuinely very confused about how the bills he was getting now could have gotten as high as they were. No matter how many times I tried to explain to him, I couldn’t get it across. I finally just gave up the endeavor.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Part of the issue with the value of college isn’t that it educated, but that it acted like an ordeal to overcome and filtered out people who didn’t have the makings of being a leader. Not all of that is due to educational ability.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      On the other hand I owe my career in IT to learning how to bypass the parental controls my parents set up and cover my tracks. That got me started in computers really early.

    • AchtungDrempels@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I thought you’d be talking about letting kids climb up high into trees, going into the city on their own, let them hang out at the skatepark without supervision, stuff like that.

      But no, it’s about computers and kids not being able to see goatse. Lol. That’s lemmy i guess.

  • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    More and more people are against giving kids internet access. Allow me to go against the grain:

    If your child is neurodivergent, or LGBTQ+, or any other form of misfit, then denying them internet access is tantamount to condemning them to social isolation. It wasn’t until I got unrestricted internet access, circa 17 years of age, that I realised that actually, no, I wasn’t a fucking alien, there were hundreds of thousands of people just like me, but I didn’t know because I was stuck in this shitty small town with shitty small town people. So I spent seventeen years thinking there was something fundamentally wrong with me when in reality there was something wrong with the environment around me.

    I would have had a much happier early life if I’d gotten internet earlier. Wouldn’t have spent 90% of my teens being suicidal.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Hot sauces should be required by law to list their Scoville range (SHU) on their packaging.

    • TehBamski@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      100% agree. I want to know whether I’m increasing, decreasing, or maintaining my heat threshold.

    • don@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Fuckin facts, yo, I’m tired of searching up the sauce to try to get a gauge of wherever the fuck the sauce actually is, as opposed to its marketing wank wanting to convince me I’m chowing down on neutron star, despite it really being around room temp unflavored jello.

  • Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Fediverse is not for everyone and I’d rather not have fediverse go mainstream, and if it does I’d rather have normies use normie instances like lemmy.world and mastodon.social because that way you can filter them out if you don’t like them.

      • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Its legacy as this place potentially and magically fulfilling the hopes of having the answers to one’s questions far exceeds reasonability, especially given the ordinariness of its circumstances/contents, and combine that with the fact that what they were known for is performing human experimentation on live prisoners, all without the ability to understand these experiments enough to start forming a unified concept of medicine around it, since this is Ancient Greece/Egypt we’re talking about.

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Drinking, driving, smoking, voting, consent, ability to enter contracts including marriage, joining the military:

    Raise it all to 25 and be done with it. At 25 you’re an adult, before that your body and brain are still developing.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      If you want someone learn something like driving well, you teach it to them when they’re developing, not after.

      And for the love of all that is holy, please do not give even more political power to old people

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Oh no! But you see young people joining the military because of indoctrination or poverty surely are to blame for US interventionism (read terrorism)!!!

    • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      If I can’t vote until I’m 25 then I don’t want to be paying tax until I’m 25.

      No taxation without representation.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Also, for many areas, a vehicle is a necessity of adult life.

        If you’re not letting kids drive at 16, then for that *almost-*decade until they’re 25 you’d better provide free transportation as well.

        Since that’s not about to happen, leave it as it is.

    • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Thinking people in their late teenage years and young adults aren’t mature enough to do some of those things is just a big tell of how bad we educate them rather than their brain not being “developed”.

      Consent is the most obvious example, teenagers are gonna have a sexual life no matter what you want them to do. Removing consent just remove yourself from the responsibility of educating them and entice them to stay hidden.

      Driving is also just necessary to anyone working, again being safe just need to be taught, plenty of adults are just as immature and stupid.

      The same can be said for drinking or smoking, prevention is so much more effective than restrictions.

      However, for voting or joining the army that’s when i agree. Because the system is built to prey on them, making sure they stay uneducated and vulnerable. So only then does having restrictions make sens to keep them safe.

      • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I don’t follow your argument about sex ed and consent.

        Sex ed should start as soon as kids can talk, to keep it from being stigmatized and to prevent predation. There is no need to wait until a child reaches sexual maturity for that; in fact, at that point it is too late.

        As to driving, most people shouldn’t be driving, period. We are, in general, not good at it. Leave it to the professionals.

          • folkrav@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Don’t know what’s so funny about that. Teaching your toddler that not everyone can touch their genitals is sex ed, and should absolutely be done as soon as they can understand it…

            • Xer0@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              Ok, in that case I totally agree. But going into detail about actual sex doesn’t seem like a great idea that early.

                • Xer0@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Of course I don’t think that, it’s one of the most natural fucking things in the world. I just think for young children, especially ones who just learned how to talk, there’s things they definitely DON’T need to know yet.

              • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                There’s more than one specific topic covered in sex ed.

                We teach math to children, but nobody is suggesting that you need to get your toddler into differential equations.

        • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I agree, the sooner the better.

          Sex ed is what makes children mature enough to have sex once they reach the age of doing it.

          But what’s the point of raising the age of consent?

          My point is there isn’t any if sex ed is done well, it only makes sex more taboo.

          Conversely, if you want to raise it, maybe it’s because sex ed wasn’t done properly, making teens not able to be mature enough for an activity they are gonna do anyway.

          For driving, I would agree in general we aren’t good at driving, but changing our means of transport isn’t easy, despite being the best solution. That wasn’t really the topic though…

    • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Interesting, but don’t you think it would cause issues as well?

      We all develop differently and many are mature before 25 while I’ve ceetainly met people who are not even in their thirties. Do you have any research to support 25 being a more fitting age than 18?

      Also: if you cannot enter contracts you cannot work. Do you really think everybody should not be able to hold a job until they reach 25?

      • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I worked long before I could legally enter contracts. Only one of my jobs has had an employment contract.

        I agree with your point that many reach maturity before 25 or even 18, however I don’t think enabling those fortunate few is worth stripping the protections of minority from the rest.

        • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’m sure you did, but that is not a good thing. At least where I’m from, a contract is a must have. It states everything related to your job, including tasks, vacation time and salary. Without it you have fewer (or none) legs to stand on should your employer be an ass.

          You wouldn’t buy a house without signing the paperwork proving it’s yours and you should not work without a signed contract.

          I’m no neuroscientist so I can’t in good faith comment on our development, so I’m only arguing against the contract signing part.

    • corroded@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I tend to agree, but I would set the age lower. A person can graduate high school at 18, get a 4-year degree, and still be 3 years away from “adulthood” by your definition. There are plenty of professionals in the first 3 years of their career who are contributing members of society. Shouldn’t they be able to drive to work, sign a rental contract, etc? I’ve been in my career for over 20 years, and I have always worked with young people who may be lacking experience but are still productive employees. I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.

        I’m guessing their position is very much “oh they still need to work and pay taxes…and they shouldn’t expect any more support than they currently have in order to do so…but they need to figure out how to manage it all without driving, and they should be disenfranchised as well”.

  • BurnSquirrel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Here’s one I get a lot of flack for that I don’t bring up much

    I think people trying to cook up gun control laws are targeting the wrong guns, in going after semi auto or military rifles, when they should be going after cheap handguns that have been available forever. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, and that’s almost always done with a hand gun, but even if you control for that the majority of homicides with guns are done with hand guns.

    Hand guns are usually relatively cheap. They are very easy to conceal. Its very common for people to walk into a bar with a holstered hand gun and make a series of bad decisions. Its too common for people to get in road rage incidents that escalate into something tragic because of a handgun in the glove box. People leave them around their house and treat them as toys that kids end up finding.

    AND I would argue that handguns are not in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. They are not fighting weapons. They are for fun, personal protection, or making people feel tough without having to do any real work. They have little range and lesser power. There are are no troops in the world that deploy with handguns as a primary weapon. US military officers get them but that’s more about tradition.

    Yes, I’m aware that shooting incidents done with rifles would be more deadly, but the fact there would be much fewer of them at all would be a net benefit in a society that banned or severely restricted hand guns.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Problem is that most of your anti-gun folk aren’t crazy, or don’t want to appear as such, and so they placate the defenders of gun rights with phrases resembling “I believe we should be able to have handguns because self defense buuuuuut nobody should have semi auto rifles.” Of course, the second they do ban long guns (curbing a total of 500/60,000 gun deaths a year mind you), they’ll switch to “oh well clearly that didn’t work so now we’re taking the handguns too.” It’s literally by design, simply a tactic to fool those who won’t bother looking into that whole “only 500 killed with long guns/yr” stat, nor the fact that 5.56 only delivers about as much energy as a hot .357mag rnd, but the Barrett .50BMG which is bolt action and therefore totally fine delivers about 10,000 more ft-lbs of energy, etc.

      Besides that, the 2a protects things “in common use” according to Heller and “must have a historical precedent for bans,” according to Bruen therefore handguns do fall quite under the scope of the 2a and a ban would be ruled unconstitutional immediately.

      Besides that, self defense is important, and unless you suggest people start open carrying ARs, the best way to do it is to CCW a compact 9mm handgun.

      Furthermore “guns shouldn’t be for the poor” would help to curb crime, but at what cost? That is pure T bona-fide classism and I don’t support it, personally.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    The vast majority of people whining about the current political landscape have done absolutely nothing IRL to remedy this (tangibly supporting good candidates, running for office themselves, etc.)

  • toomanypancakes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    There’s no ethical way to kill someone that’s done nothing to you and doesn’t want to die, and that’s not just for humans.

    • folkrav@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I guess we could say “humane”, or “as quick and painless as possible”?

      • Gloomy@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Bullshit. You wouldn’t call it ethical to kill a 5 year old you see in the street just because it is done quick and painless.

        Murder doesn’t become ethical just because it’s not also torture.

  • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    That Amerikans don’t deserve any special consideration, and in fact, deserve a Century of Humiliation where the odious “please collaborate in our genocide so the cryptofascist oligarchy Democracy™ that anglo-saxon, protestant-descended magnates and a small fraction of uplifted misleaders we All™ enjoy will be saved!” brainworm is concerned.

    Yes. My principles do matter to me more than you do at this point if you’re going to look me in the face and tell me I have to support a genocider, all so you (or whatever minority you’re about to only care about long enough to use as a cudgel) can remain comfortable.

  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    If you let your cat outside in the Americas (or anywhere cats haven’t lived for thousands of years) unsupervised I’m going to assume one of the following is true: you don’t care if your cat dies, and/or you don’t care about wildlife. Even if you live in a place with zero predators, why the hell are you trusting a CAT with road safety?

    Saying this as someone who grew up with parents that let our cats live (and die, a lot) that way. And as someone who has seen two friends lose cats to coyotes in the past year. And also interrupted an attack on someone’s pet by a coyote. It’s been a bad fucking year here for coyotes.

    • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Thank you for pointing out that this is only an issue for places where wild cats have been non-native.

    • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Plus, my (indoor) cat can’t help but have a loud, boisterous conversation with any cat that wanders through my yard. Usually at 2am while I’m trying to sleep.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      My cats were born an outdoor cat and I’d rather they touched some grass and lived an actual life rather than be stuck inside all day even if they die earlier. I’m sure they would too.

      Wildlife argument is valid though. They kill some good (rats, mice), but I can’t justify them killing birds and lizards.

      • dustycups@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I feel like this is slowly changing (based on no real evidence).

        At least some councils are CATching up.