context also heavily welcome.
I suggested that good music comes from republican administrations without clarifying that I was thinking about bands like Rage Against The Machine, System Of A Down, Dead Kennedys, etc.
That’s an interesting way of thinking about that. Huh. Sone of my favorite bands too. So if we lived under a peaceful just administration then what? Constant peaceful melodies. Do we need a machine to rage against for great music.?? You may be onto something
I guess, if you declare that as good music. which is really subjective. but meh.
Which is funny because Rage broke up when W Bush got elected.
Saying: “Google says stalking is a crime in 50 US states.” gave me 29 downvotes. The question was: “Would it be legal to crowdfund a licensed private detective to investigate a public figure and publish their results publicly?”
oh, I saw that question. But I think, its legal to hire someone to “investigate” someone, but not do it yourself. At least I heard it somewhere.
Had to skim through a bit, but it appears to be this one:
https://lemmy.world/comment/9834772
I suggested that people could use throwaway temporary email accounts if they didn’t want to risk using their real email to register for Sony’s annoying forced PSN registration for their PC games.
I’ve shared a few hot takes here and there on Lemmy so I am surprised that this one ended up being my lowest (so far).
I don’t know if I was downvoted for angering the Sony fans by notion that there could be security concerns with PSN, or people who disliked the suggestion that they didn’t have to use their real emails to still register for an account, or both.
The post was a news story about a sports arena calling a kid to the front and saying Santa got him a new PS5 but they didn’t end up giving him one.
A top comment claimed this is legally considered theft. I replied saying it’s shitty but it’s not legally theft. Got 91 downvotes for that.
All my other downvoted comments come from posting in video game communities about how I don’t think video games need to exist forever.
Replying to someone claiming NFTs are a scam:
One small but important correction. NFTs are not a scam, it’s an amazing technology that has the potential to revolutionize lots of stuff, that became popular when people used it for stupid shit.
Saying NFT is a scam because people have used it to scam others is like saying phones are a scam because people call others over the phone to scam them.
NFTs are essentially a decentralized token. This means that they can be used to represent anything you might want to represent with a token, e.g. ownership of a physical object such as a car or a house; ownership of a digital asset, such as a website or game; some predetermined amount of something, similar to a stock or bonds; etc. The fact that some people used it to mean ownership of random pictures and people thought buying random pictures on the internet for a ridiculous amount of money was a good idea tells you more about people than about the technology.
Any time I point out that nuclear energy from new plants is really fucking expensive. Some people get mad at me for pointing out basic economics.
I don’t know how to find that on lemmy. I don’t know how to get my top comment either. None of the sorting functions seem to work.
didn’t know there were sorting functions, I just like to go through my comments sometimes and noticed my most down voted one, that got me curious. But a sorting function would be pretty epic…
Profilie -> comments tab -> sort by controversial
It would also be interesting to see which comment is most disliked (which one has the most net negative score), but I don’t think there’s a sort that does that.
Yes I’ve tried the obvious path. It doesn’t sort them.
Probably when I expressed support for Harris. As a “lib” I support transphobia and genocide, you see.
The left and infighting - name a more iconic duo (IMPOSSIBLE EDITION)
Infighting would imply harris is a part of the left. She’s comfortably right wing by any measure. And there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s a valid political stance to take (not mine, but again, this is fine). Calling leftists disagreeing with harris leftist infighting is like calling the cold war leftist infighting.
I’m sorry, but I can never be “infighting” with someone who is supporting an ongoing genocide. That’s always going to be outfighting.
Hey, that’s the spirit.
TIL that neoliberals are part of “the Left”.
It’s happening again
Leftist infighting is real, but this ain’t it.
No, the democrats will embrace transphobia the next election cycle so as to unsuccessfully court the right and alienate the left (a strategy which netted them a solid 1 out of the past three elections, which is 1 more than Jill Stein). This cycle they went after undocumented immigrants.
This one: https://feddit.nl/post/1819542/1925630
The funny thing is, if you click on the context button and show all the comments, one agreeing with me has something like 120 upvotes, so I suppose I was just being too cheeky or something. Sometimes I wonder what proportion of people are using the downvote as a disagree button compared to as a “doesn’t contribute to the discussion” button.
I use it as a “don’t like it” so if I disagree I downvote, if it doesn’t fit in the discussion I down vote as well. I don’t think it matters too much, what matters is your own opinion.
I can’t prove it nowadays, but I once remarked that society should find a way for homeless people to be separated by how they became homeless.
The context was that homelessness is a spectrum and that being indiscriminate when doing anything related to the homeless downplays the enormous gap between forms of it. I’ve been on both sides of it before; I’ve technically been “homeless” (I’ve had a roof over my head for as long as I can remember, but it was often couch-hopping), as well as have done things related to the homeless. Sometimes I ask about it, I expect by now it might range between “I’m a teetotaler whose house burnt down and I’ve been on the streets ever since” to “I keep getting a home but keep losing it in shady gambles”. Surely homelessness is a case-by-case thing, right?
People are blind to these differences, however. To most outsiders, homelessness is just homelessness. From the outside, these things don’t come to mind when people are protective, so if you mention wanting to do it case-by-case, you feel the wrath of the population who I have seen seemingly insist I’m being discriminatory over victims of a sensitive topic. I think maybe a few hundred or so people weighed in against me. It was not only what many might call the most particularly severe example but also one of the earliest. The tragically “funny” thing is that it’s one of those things where most people immediately learn the reality of as soon as they become a victim of homelessness, actually interact with them, or even spend time in a psych ward like me because a lot of them turn themselves in because it means you’ll get care, so it becomes one of those things that’s said to be like a litmus test for if someone is genuinely associated with it versus someone who sees portrayals of it and tries to look like they are.
This was probably all in the phrasing or maybe people just don’t understand the reality of the situation?
I worked for several years doing mobile therapy that included a significant amount of homeless outreach and crisis management. Everyone deserves to be housed, bottom line, but what it takes for that to happen is a complex situation
There’s the “xxx,xxx amount of homeless but xx,xxx,xxx amount of empty homes in america” statistic that people throw around. I forget the exact numbers but I’m pretty sure thats the scale, if not the take away is that you could literally give each homeless person a free house and still have millions of empty houses. But this would not solve homelessness, at least in the current system. The overwhelming majority would be back on the street fairly quickly. Even if you eliminate the need for mortgage there’s still the need for property taxation; if you eliminate that then communities start to get real shitty. Even if you eliminate that there’s still utility and food costs. Even if you eliminate that there’s still maintenance and not actively destroying the place.
Institutionalization isn’t necessarily the answer although in extreme cases it can be. We had supported rehabilitation programs that were pretty successful, basically apartments with staff that would keep tabs on you, help you budget, do resumes, help you get to drs appointments, make sure you took medications (but didn’t force you to unless there was a court order/probation situation and even then it wasn’t like a “force” situation although there was inherent coercion as not taking meds would be reported to po/court), apply for section 8, etc. you would stay there for a year or two and then move to a more independent placement once supports were in place.
There were also longer term programs for people who genuinely struggled and just couldn’t get that step down to work. These were similar but had less focus on connecting to services and were more akin to nursing homes with more psychiatric care
But then there were also more intensive residential programs we referred to for people with more serious mental illness or addiction issues
The issue, of course, was funding. We had like 32 beds in the short term and 11 in the long term. Funding was like 50% state funding, 20% grants, 30% donations and fundraising and the budgets were tight. Meanwhile the town probably had 30-50 actively homeless at any given point on top of whoever wasn’t in the program and another 50-100 with insecure housing. Even the intense programs, which generally had more secure state funding, still had an overall lack of beds and would have very long wait lists. Sad stuff.
That was about a decade ago now, I feel like it has to be worse now post Covid and trump. I can only imagine what the next 4 years will do to their funding
It’s almost as of there are archetypes for patients in hospitals due to common, middle of the bell curve occurrences of comorbidities. Example: diabetic dialysis patient with anemia and 1-2 amputations above/below the knee due to pernicious vascularization complications. No, that’s not your family member, that is a common scenario given the convergence of certain conditions.
Should medical professionals be indiscriminate here? Treat everyone like a dialysis patient? No. That sounds ridiculous because it is. People are wild and varied within every context including homelessness.
Here’s an archetype situation seen among the homeless population. A pernicious issue with lower extremity circulation occurs (due to diabetes, frostbite, infection left untreated) such that patient can no longer walk after receiving medical care (often amputation). Patient is also homeless and can’t just be discharged to street due to inability to walk. Patient needs to be placed, on Medicaid, in a nursing home. Patient is on the sexual predator list and thus no nursing home will allow them in their facility. Patient sits in hospital room taking up space, not receiving medical care because they no longer need any, waiting, for months. That hospital room is now a hotel room with medical professionals supplying room service.
Go to the sex offender registry and do a 3 mile radius search of your own address. Good odds you’ll find some, and more than you think you should. No address, then how do these guys get registered by their location?
It’s not as daily scenario, but a memorable one that happens every 3-6mos like clockwork. And those are just the homeless sex offenders coming in for medical treatment that cannot then just be discharged back to street.
People are not the same and should not be treated as such. You are not wrong there. Destroying children shouldn’t receive the same consideration for an apartment as someone living in their car due to a bit of bad luck.
This one
:O
r u a wizard
Mine was saying that 15 is old enough to be aware of what’s going on in the world regarding some UK teen that gave up UK citizenship to move to some place in the Middle East and wasn’t allowed to come back. Or something along those lines.
It got -20.
Probably one a few weeks ago where I said civilised people shouldn’t condone murder even if the victim is a bad person.
It’s like the Trolley Problem, though. If the death of one person might cause fewer other people to die, could it be justified?
might
You gamble with your own life too?
I still don’t feel bad about such people getting adjusted if it means a shift in perspective.
The thing is that symbolic murders can have consequences so good they greatly outweight the bad action. That’s why we killed our king in france. Sure killing is bad, and he wasn’t that guilty as he was just dumb, but killing him changed the world for good
It wasn’t heavily down voted but people didn’t like my comment explaining that the first time I saw #metoo, I thought it was funny because when I was a kid “hashtag” hadn’t been invented yet, that’s the pound sign.
Bunch of ones where I’m defending Hexbear downvoted 0 to -5, but then I found this one:
Context is something about the election. The post is deleted, so idk what the photo was of, but I was responding to something about how not voting or voting for a 3rd party makes you a Trump supporter.
