The only way that could conceivably work out is if everyone collectively protested their student loans together since it’s such a massive problem for so many people. Even then, the government would probably buckle down and try to destroy half the country’s financial viability before they caved and admitted this toxic industry preyed on kids that didn’t know what that debt meant when they signed up for it.

Lmao, unfortunately not. Thanks for catching the typo.

isn’t**

Oh it definitely happens. I’m a young millennial and I have a friend my age who deals with mental issues because he ate lead paint leftover in their old house as a child. Lead was so prevalent at one point that getting rid of it all isn’t as simple as flipping a switch.

Edit: [wasn’t -> isn’t] There does not in fact exist a switch that we can now flip to remove lead. Thanks @Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works.

How a person reacts to being asked about the version of these things most close to them is telling. If they get defensive and deny the event happened, I would hesitate to trust their opinion on other things. Clearly that person bases their opinions on what they want to be true rather than reality. That’s the kind of person whose ideology would likely lead to another event to be ashamed of. If, on the other hand, they admit it was a horrible thing and agree that people should be educated on it and that steps should be taken to prevent it from ever happening again, then I’m more likely to take their opinion seriously and believe that they can be part of the conversations we need to happen to create a better world.

You are just a capitalist that likes welfare. Your ideology has absolutely no desire to change the ruling class or overturn the system that is currently burning the world and leading us to destruction.

I don’t think you help your case arguing this way. I’m not even dissecting socialism when I say that - just your approach to argument. You don’t know my ideology. Creating a strawman of my views isn’t going to convince me or anyone else that you have a good point. Hell, for a long time I did consider myself an actual socialist. I would love to lay out my reasons for my movement away from that, but I’m not sure you’re ready to have that respectful exchange of views.

The liberals obsessed with the “nordic model” still would’ve downvoted it. They don’t like having to wrestle with the reality of climate change. Our options are socialism or extinction.

Beginning an argument with “Your head is up your ass so far that I won’t bother arguing. I’m right no matter what.” is a sure way to have people dismiss your arguments outright. I say this all because I want my opponents to be good at arguing. I want to hear persuasive viewpoints. I don’t believe for a moment that I have all the answers, so I welcome any opposition to the beliefs that I’ve come to possess. If you believe that you have the answers, then I’m genuinely all ears. But unfortunately, arguing isn’t about being right - it’s about persuading other people that you are. The internet has made it easy to lose sight of this and argue with hostility instead of respect. I’m trying to be sincere here. Please consider the purpose of getting into these internet spats. I see so much hostility outright from people on the left and it genuinely sucks. I find that when I try to dig even a little bit into arguments for socialism or communism that I often hit this barrier of hostility. It’s not a good way of selling a viewpoint. And you can say that it’s not your job, but then I ask why we’re even here having this conversation.

Now, I’ll stop patronizing you. I’ll throw my argument out there so you can tear it to pieces. Back to labels - what socialism looks like to you depends on who you are. You say it’s when “the old institutions are thrown out and the new institutions are introduced”. I’ll take that to mean some form of government is in possession of the means of production across the board? My hesitancy towards socialism is mostly centered on my knowledge of history and the repeated trends of powerful institutions decaying into corruption and greed. I think socialism could genuinely work really well as long as the people in charge were kept honest. But my skepticism is towards the long term sustainability of such a system. Time and again we see institutions decay and fall prey to humanity’s worst impulses. The fall of the Roman Republic (and the regular chaos of the Roman Empire for that matter) is my classic go-to for this, but there are plenty of non-western examples as well. The best cases I’ve seen in my studies of various histories seem to be centered around cultures that dispersed their power into many smaller institutions. My problem with socialism is that it inherently says “we’re going to get rid of business corruption and government corruption by combining the two”. I think creating an even smaller, more focused center of power in society is a dangerous proposal - it becomes all the more easy for the wealthy elites to worm their way into that power and take control. Essentially you’re taking all of those wealthy capitalist greedy dirtbags and then moving them into the government.

Capitalism, on the other hand, removes business from government which allows, in theory, for the government to act as a counter-weight to business. Now, you and I both know that that hasn’t stopped wealthy elites from worming their way into capitalism and capturing government interests. But my main point here is that socialism isn’t solving that problem. It’s throwing fuel on the fire by cutting out the one supposed protection we do have, which is a separation of government interests and business interests. Ostensibly, when capitalism is working the way it should, the government is acting as a counterweight to business greed. I think there are better ways to strengthen that counterweight that don’t necessarily fall under the label of “socialism”. I think heavily regulated capitalism is better than outright socialism because in the ideal case the government is still acting as a tool of the people, flexing its power in opposition to businesses. The ideal case in socialism has the government acting as the businesses itself, which I believe would encourage greed and would actually cause even less incentive to address things like climate change.

Yeah. Like saying you believe that companies beyond a certain size should be legally required to seek a vote from their employees before implementing certain types of changes is a real policy to argue about. Call it democratizing business or whatever you want. And then that’s an actual concrete issue we can argue about. Or if you believe in the government buying out businesses beyond a certain size, that’s a specific conversation we can have and we can discuss the hypothetical implementation of that. Call it business seizure or whatever. Just saying “I believe in socialism” doesn’t dig enough into the details of how you perceive socialism or how you would implement it. And frankly, I think it hurts the socialists or communists or whoever is trying to persuade the current culture away from what we have more than anybody else. Ideas grow when you make real, concrete proposals. These exceedingly large scale labels usually end up killing a conversation rather than feeding it. Someone gets mad at a label and then everything shuts down on that sticking point.

I think the way we argue over labels hurts us. If I use heavy regulation and government aid to limit the abuses in a capitalist system, at what point does the label change to “socialism”? I think we do ourselves a disservice to create these strict conceptions of systems like capitalism, socialism, or communism. Then when one fails we get to say “well that wasn’t true x”. And the labels allow people to boogeyman an idea. And worst of all, we eliminate the possibility to take good lessons from multiple different systems and incorporate them into our system. I think we would be better served promoting policies on a case by case basis instead of using these huge words. And to be clear, I’m a bit of a hypocrite here. I’ve been mostly telling people I’m a “social democrat” or that I support “capitalism with heavy regulations”. But even those words can get picked apart and don’t really capture nuance. My main point is that I think this thread is a perfect encapsulation of how these arguments stop us from getting behind good policies when we bicker about the definitions of words that mean different things to different people.

Honestly, I think the way we argue over labels hurts us. If I use heavy regulation and government aid to limit the abuses in a capitalist system, at what point does the label change to “socialism”? I think we do ourselves a disservice to create these strict conceptions of systems like capitalism, socialism, or communism. Then when one fails we get to say “well that wasn’t true x”. And the labels allow people to boogeyman an idea. And worst of all, we eliminate the possibility to take good lessons from multiple different systems and incorporate them into our system. I think we would be better served promoting policies on a case by case basis instead of using these huge words. And to be clear, I’m a bit of a hypocrite here. I’ve been mostly telling people I’m a “social democrat” or that I support “capitalism with heavy regulations”. But even those words can get picked apart and don’t really capture nuance. My main point is that I think this thread is a perfect encapsulation of how these arguments stop us from getting behind good policies when we bicker about the definitions of words that mean different things to different people.

I worked midnight to 8am as a security supervisor at a hospital. It was nice in some ways and awful in other ways. Honestly, all the ways it was awful occurred outside of the actual shift itself. It was harder to hang out with friends, I was always tired, I had to try to get tired and sleep while it was sunny out (blackout curtains and sunglasses on the drive home ftw), and the world was waking up while I was going to bed. It was hard on my relationship with my wife.

The shift itself was pretty great actually. The hospital was quieter at night. As a supervisor, I did have some issues with my guards falling asleep at desks or trying to hide and take naps. Two people got fired over it. But most of them were pretty good. One guy fell asleep while driving the patrol vehicle and crashed it into a gate. That was embarrassing for everyone and he ultimately lost his job (he didn’t admit to falling asleep, but we all suspected it - he was working two jobs and was perpetually tired). The best thing about the job was sneaking up onto the roof early in the morning on my patrols and watching the sun rise.

I think a more serious and probable question is what would happen if your doctor had a heart attack during surgery. Doesn’t take a degree from Hollywood Upstairs Medical School for that to happen!

LENNY!!!

What purpose does throwing someone in prison for ten years do though for something like forgery? Would it not be better if they were forced to do community service and lost access to the tools that led to them committing forgery? Why pay money to remove someone from society for a decade? Is it to teach any other potential forgerers a lesson? Is it to teach the forgerer themself a lesson? Is that really a lesson that needs to be worth a decade in a cell to learn? The world’s justice systems have generally erred too much on the side of retribution instead of rehabilitation. It’s especially sinister when you consider how much our capitalist system places more value on things like capital over people’s lives and wellbeings. To be clear, I consider myself to be a capitalist, but a social democrat that believes in heavy regulations on our capitalist systems. I think our retributive, excessively pro-business justice system is a clear example of what happens when you let capitalism go unfettered and bleed into every aspect of our lives. Forgery is not violent. Most of the time it is not actively dangerous. Why don’t we come up with more creative and proactive ways of punishing people that would benefit people at large rather than ruin the criminal’s entire life? Even in a case where I am not on the criminal’s side I find myself pretty appalled that ten years could even possibly be on the table in a forgery case.

Seriously. Why the fuck is it even a possibility for ten years of prison over something like this? It’s crazy to me that a nonviolent crime could be punished so severely. I mean, why do we have prison? Is it to remove dangerous people from society? That’s certainly how I think it should be, but these sorts of punishments really show that it’s all about sating the bloodlust of victims.

I appreciate your patience with my ignorance. Thanks for that 😅 Seems I spent a bit too much time in old hostels in cities to have a good understanding of European infrastructure… Probably not unlike coming to the US, seeing New York City and Boston, and assuming our infrastructure is all old…

All good points, though speaking from the US/Canada, most of our sinks now only have a single faucet so if hot water is dangerous in any way then this certainly doesn’t prevent things like residual amounts of microorganisms or harmful substances left from the hot water from coming into contact with our cold water by the time it reaches the faucet. Our single faucets are probably a result of modernized newer plumbing in our newer buildings - water heaters in the US are huge, sealed very tight, and are designed to be replaced fairly regularly. I’m guessing many places throughout France and other parts of Europe still have older plumbing systems because replacing them would be difficult and costly in all the older buildings you guys have. Do you have mostly dual faucet sinks in France?

US/Canada here as well as someone that has visited most of western Europe (UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland) and stayed in hostels - no boiling necessary in any of these places.

There’s actually a pervasive myth I’ve encountered that hot tap water is dangerous and that one should only drink cold water. As far as I’m aware, this myth is due to an old setup for water systems that many western homes had before modern taps. The tap was separated into separate cold/hot faucets. The cold water came safely from the city, but the hot water came from tanks that were stored in people’s attics. The water in these tanks sat stagnant and was therefore prone to rats and other creatures dying in it or bacteria building up. This is why still today, most British homes have separate hot/cold taps - to keep the “safe” water separate from the “dangerous” water. I occasionally encountered such taps in the US and I assume that’s why my dad raised me to make sure the water was cold before drinking it. My father’s understanding of this was clearly outdated though. I learned all of this from a Tom Scott video.

Some day the orioles will discover the same technology. I’ll be walking through a forest and hear a really sexxed up voice saying “Hey big guy, why don’t you come up here and make me moan?”. So I’ll naturally climb up the tree to investigate and all I’ll see is an oriole excitedly staring at me and holding its phone using the Birdnell Humanology app. Only then will the birds have their revenge in full.

I love the ornithology app so much! I recorded an oreole singing in the forest the other day, then the app identified it and gave me a list of recordings of oreole songs, so I was able to loudly play it on my phone and sure enough the oreole came over to investigate! (I felt a bit guilty for faking it out like that, so I stopped as soon as it came over.)

To me, the larger issue for the world outside of Russia is the ensuing chaos would be pretty scary when there are nukes sitting around. All it would take is one bad actor to get ahold of those for bad things to happen. I don’t think it’s likely and I can’t currently see the motivations for using nukes on any other nations apart from Russia itself and Ukraine, but chaos is chaos and many would consider the evil we know to be safer than whatever else lurks around the corner.

Personally, though, despite being aware of this it would regardless please me so much to see Putin fall. I would especially love to see Russia democratize more, but I’m afraid that’s probably a pipe dream anytime soon. Uncontrolled chaos generally doesn’t lend itself to more democracy.

I was once a fundamentalist Christian. After a long and difficult process I deconverted and became a very vocal atheist. One of the “all religion is horrible” types. But at some point I realized that I had never abandoned my fundamentalism. I had only changed the flavor of it from religious to nonreligious. I still dealt in extreme beliefs with very little room for questioning and nuance.

It was when I introduced that nuance into my thought process that my worldview genuinely changed. I’ve come to understand that most lines you can divide people on will have well intentioned people and sinister people on both sides. I have met so many delightfully kind and welcoming religious people in addition to all the terrible ones I’ve known. They’re generally in different circles, but not always. It does us a mental disservice to think in such black and white ways.

The same can be applied to arguments. It is possible for two sides of an argument to have genuinely good points. It’s possible for an argument to not have a “good” side. And of course it’s possible for an argument to have a completely good side or a completely bad side. The point there is that I think we should think critically and dissect arguments and look for good faith arguments and bad faith arguments. We should understand that things aren’t always going to be easy to make decisions on and that’s okay. It’s okay to struggle with an issue and admit that you don’t have an answer to every question.

Religion is a great example. Nobody can prove something that isn’t provable. You can think that religion is sinister for that reason, but I think that does a disservice to religious people. I don’t believe in God. I don’t think I’m ever going to be able to believe in God if I’m being honest with myself. But I haven’t forgotten what it was like to believe and I don’t blame people for finding comfort in it. Who can blame people for searching for a little bit of hope? I don’t think it matters to many religious people whether they can prove their beliefs in God because for them it’s not really about believing in the “objective truth” but rather clinging to hope for a bright future in a very dark world. And those hopes don’t need to be attached to bigotry like so many religious people have unfortunately done.