kava @ kava @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 1,152Joined 2 yr. ago
it's been the average for a long time. it's due to nicotine's pharmacological effects. its half life is roughly 1~2 hours. so a smoker on average will feel the compulsion to smoke an hour or so after the last cigarette. since most people are awake somewhere 16 hours a day, that's about ~16 cigarettes a day.
your mom's smoking habits were definitely atypical
average smoker smokes about 20 cigarettes a day. so it's a little less than half of a monthly use of cigarettes.
from what i understand the ration was meant to supplement what you consume, not provide everything
i gave two examples of simple ideas that don't fundamentally change the status quo yet are popular
that doesn't mean that simple ideas can't work
there are simple ideas, I think, that would work very well. however a populist would never go for it because it's bad marketing.
for example I think in all cities with significant junkie populations we should have clinics giving out free heroin shots to addicts. simple idea. i think it'll work
but the majority of the people would not approve of this. they don't want to see the data and research about lowering HIV rates, lowering crime, lowering healthcare costs, etc. they don't like junkies and they feel icky giving out free heroin to addicts
i'm not saying simple idea = bad. I'm not even saying populist = bad. i said that in practice it's usually tied to ideas that seem good on the surface but when you scratch the veneer off it's not nearly as good as it seems.
like i brought up above, if we restructured how our government spends money we could increase our effective spending while lowering taxes and it would have magnitudes more impact than the marginal increase in revenue from taxing the rich. so why don't we do it?
because it's a complex overhaul that would require a large initial investment and you wouldn't see the fruits for more than a couple election cycles- something a populist cannot afford.
Why do people keep using “populist” like it’s a negative?
because it's virtually always tied to policies that are meant to be easily digestible for the lowest common denominator. as it turns out, however, that complex problems virtually never have simple solutions.
ie Trump and his border wall in 2016. Populist with a populist platform to stop illegal immigration. What does it actually accomplish? Nothing because
a) it's impractical to actually build a wall across the entire length of the border
b) majority of illegal immigrants come legally on tourist visas and then overstay
but why focus on "The Wall"? Because Trump understands that it's an easily understandable symbol he can point to.
Left wing populism is similar. For example "tax the rich!" is a common mantra. And sure, taxing the rich is good. But what use is there in increasing tax revenue by a fraction of a percent when we are bleeding money at the seams to corruption? It's not going to solve our deficit. It's not going to lower taxes for the average American. Look at how the military will spend $100k on a bag of metal bushings that me and you can buy on Amazon for $100.
But how are you going to tackle the problem of deeply ingrained corruption? It permeates from our local institutions all the way to the upper echelons. Look how Haliburton got billions of dollars worth of "no-bid" contracts during the Bush administration. Just happens that Cheney, the most powerful VP in history, used to work there.
There is no easy solution. So populists come and say "tax the rich" or "build a wall" when in reality it does absolutely nothing to fix the actual problems. But the real solutions are complex and hard to relay to voters. and in fact, the solutions are painful and no politician would ever campaign on painful policies. For these reasons I think we are doomed as a society and that technocratic countries like China are going to dominate us in the next century unless we can radically change course
argue that food and drink, cigarettes and cars are already regulated more than US guns
i'd disagree. of course, I agree that all these items are regulated. which makes sense for all the same reasons- a lot of people die if you fuck up. but you don't need an id and a background check to buy a McDonalds combo meal
I’m sure you’ll be able to find some examples, and counter examples, but I don’t think that’s especially a fruitful conversation.
maybe not but your example
it’s illegal to sell soup out of the trunk of my car in some jurisdictions where I could sell a gun under the same circumstances
I think the opposite is true. There's a ton of places I can sell soup, especially if it's pre-packaged and inspected by the FDA. for example I can go to walmart and buy a bunch of canned soup and sell that all day, no problem. In most of this country, however, you cannot just sell guns from the back of your car
sure, there are exceptions in certain states. for example a private seller who is not in the regular business of selling guns, there are specific states that allow you to do so with significantly less scrutiny than a dealer. although you still have the responsibility to do a basic check (is person old enough, what is person buying gun for)
beyond that, the overwhelming majority of gun sales go through Federal Firearms Licensed businesses. which conduct background checks and check ID.
tldr: if you're in one of the few states that allow it and you want to sell 1 or 2 guns out of the back of your car, OK. if you are anywhere else and/or you sell more than a couple guns, you're liable to get hit with some very serious federal and state charges. like potentially years in the federal penitentiary type charges
if we're gonna ban stuff just based on deaths, we should get rid of fast food, soda, cigarettes, alcohol, and cars in general
Can anyone copy paste the actual article here? It's behind a paywall. I generally like Jacobin so I'd withhold judgement until actually reading the article.
Although I'd disagree on "Bidenism" as a term simply because Biden has not had nearly enough impact or influence to merit that word existing.
I sleep 8 hours a night and wake up at the same time every day. I've found that as long as my sleep schedule is consistent and reliable, my energy levels are fine. It doesn't really matter how busy I am throughout the day.
Once the sleep schedule gets out of whack (I sleep in too much, or have to wake up at 3am for work trip) then it takes a good 5 days or so to go back to normal
Let's say you want to find what will be an "old person's name" in 2060. What you do is subtract 60 from 2060 => 2000. Then go to google and type in "most popular baby names year 2000"
pick the first 10 or so and those will be "old person's name"
I think federal government probably sent a pretty please over to reddit HQ to censor this.
They're afraid of it fomenting further dissent. It's a delicate situation when the plebs are upset. A little bit is OK, in fact preferable. But too much can lead to a chain reaction that cannot be controlled.
it's a curiosity thing. i think there's a value to seeing it, although not regularly seeing it.
humans are capable of some horrifying brutality. we live in nice little perfect bubbles and we don't even realize it.
for example, it's very easy to catch yourself cheering for war in the name of idealism. but see a couple dozen war videos and you realize what it really means. i think your statement honestly holds true for any type of morbid type of content. for example Crime and Punishment- dissecting the psychology of a double homicide. you could say "why would you read 500 pages of dense literature about someone murdering two innocent people?"
it's because that's part of the human experience, for better or worse.
similar to interrogation videos on YouTube. Even poetry like Suicide in the Trenches
I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.
In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
I feel instructing people to do things goes into the action category.
exactly. that's how US law works. in England, the state has much broader powers to arrest you depending on your speech. Like for example, the first statement I made
“i believe all [plural form of random ethnic slur] should be brutally murdered”
a very similar post on twitter got someone sentenced to 2 years in jail over in England just a few months ago. let search around and find the direct quote....
i found it
“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”
My interpretation is that this is a belief. He didn't explicitly instruct anyone to do anything. He said, in other words - "if people set fire to all the muslim immigrants, i wouldn't care" or basically "i would be happy with people setting fire to all muslim imimgrants"
in England, that's a crime. in the US, you have to be much more explicit. You have to
a) specifically instruct people to do something "everyone, attack that person in the red hat"
b) hold the belief that your statement has a real chance to followed. so for example, if you right now say "hey kava, beat your wife" you almost certainly could not be charged in the US because a reasonable person would not immediately beat their wife because of a statement like that
c) it has to be immediate - so you have to say something and it happen in the very near future. so if you write "let's stab all the [ethnic slurs]" and then someone reads that 3 months into the future- you can't be held liable.
So I believe the US laws, in this case, are so much better than English laws.
The US does a lot of shit wrong. So many things. But on speech? I think best in the world.
edit: there's more on this topic if you're interested: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
I appreciate the personal anecdote. I believe in cases like the one you detailed, assisted suicide is not only morally justified but I think perhaps even obligatory. It does sound horrific and I can only imagine how horrific it feels to be that person going through that period of time.
When I say duty to live, I'm more speaking to those who are not terminally ill. Another user brought up a good point where what we need to do is look at the death % rates and see how they shifted. For example, if 20% of people now die from assisted suicide, do 20% less people die from cancer and other similar diseases? Then assisted suicide is for all intents and purposes relegated to terminally ill patients.
If the number, however, is let's say 15% less people die from cancer, that would imply 5% more people are dying because of assisted suicide than would have otherwise died. This is the part I'm scared of.
Again, I appreciate your comment. It must have been a profound thing to witness. For good and for bad.
things not in the physical realm should have consequences not in the physical realm
I mean, it depends. I think the current laws in the US are more or less fine.
For example, if I send you a death threat through an online message, it should be equivalent to me sending you a death threat in any other fashion.
So I'm not a total absolutist, but I am a strong free-speech proponent.
I think saying something like "i believe all [plural form of random ethnic slur] should be brutally murdered" is an expression of a belief. it's a horrific belief, yes, but it's a belief. I think it constitutes as free speech and therefore the government cannot prosecute
however let's say I'm a musician at a concert and i see a guy in the crowd and point and yell to the crowd "hey everybody, attack that [singular form of ethnic slur] and rip his [religious apparel] off" - that isn't a belief. that is an incitement to violence.
that should be a crime.
in England, both the first and the 2nd are crimes. here in the US, it's only the 2nd
yeah it's a weird time. over in England during the anti-immigrant riots some people got sent to jail for inciting violence for some twitter messages. If you actually read the messages and compare it to the rhetoric coming out of many people about this CEO, many people would be sent to jail if we were following the same standard.
obviously the US is not England and we have free speech protections- but people really should exercise caution
Trump's base is more nuanced, I think. If he starts the rhetoric bashing "big pharma" and "corrupt CEOs" then I think his base will fall in line.
That's the thing with Trump. His policies don't actually need to be logically coherent with traditional GOP values.
For example, GOP has historically championed low regulation, low taxes, and free market capitalism. This has been hammered home until it's become almost an autonomic verbal tic or religious phrase ("inshallah" "god bless our troops")
But then he comes and he loudly and repeatedly pushes for tariffs - instating large and broad taxes that restrict free market capitalism. And what happens? His base cheers him on for it.
Or for example GOP has historically been supportive of illegal immigrants. Look at Ronald Reagan, another quasi-religious symbol of the GOP. He gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Legalized them and supported immigration. Why? Because it's good for free market capitalism.
What about Trump? He goes the other way. Wants to restrict the import of labor as much as possible, hurting free market capitalism.
See what I mean? It doesn't actually matter what his real policies are. That's what I find fascinating about him. I think he has the power to take universal healthcare and actually implement it in this country if he wanted to. And that it would cement his legacy permanently.
Which to me, is something a megalomaniac would want
Never say anything you aren't willing to stand behind. Because it won't go away. And with authoritarian regimes coming to power... you gotta be cognizant of the potential consequences
But generally, I agree with you. The further we get away from groupthink the better we are for it. When we self-censor out of fear of disapproval we are perpetuating the cycle and making it more likely the next person doesn't speak their mind.
Just because everyone believes something is right, does not mean it is. The majority has been wrong in the past and it will be wrong in the future.
am i mistaken? are we on a website for discussion in a thread about the topic of conversation or are we in a hospice ward for terminal cancer patients?
i haven't made a single reply to someone unsolicited in this thread. again, you have nothing meaningful to say so you default to vague pearl clutching.
i will absolutely speak about abortion to someone if the topic of conversation is abortion. i will tell someone how i feel- if it is solicited. i support abortion, personally. i spent a good hour arguing with some religious people at an anti-abortion booth on my campus when i was in college.
I think the smart move, from Trump, would be to announce he supports public healthcare. That the American people have spoken and bla bla bla, he's the voice of the people. He would immediately jump 15 points in popularity.
of course a lot of people would lose money and there's an ingrained power structure that will fight that tooth and nail. but Trump has dismantled and taken over powerful existing power structures before (ie the GOP).
this would help him if he really does want to radically change the country into a psuedo-fascist oligarchy thing which seems to be Musk's and Thiel's goal
Those just glorify the military industrial complex
watching a soldier's legs get blown up by a drone with 3 dead soldiers around him pick up his rifle and shoot himself in the head isn't really what I would call a show of glory