As for the the human rights thing, I already admitted that I jumped the gun with my reply to that. I didn’t read your comment closely enough. No need to be patronizing. I don’t want to strip people of human rights under any circumstances.
But your idea about separating us from them reminds me of the paradox of tolerance that is often cited around left leaning Fediverse communities. What do you think about this?
You’re still speaking about opening a door and setting a precedent. I’m saying that if someone really is motivated to strip rights from people, they don’t need a precedent. They will do it if they have the power to do it. Whoever they may be, hypothetically. That shouldn’t stop us from taking action when we can against groups whose sole ideology is hatred of others.
Anybody in the future can set a new precedent. Why should that limit us from challenging the problems of today?
Your second point is the exact point that I addressed. There is no “paving the way”. They will do it if they want to, regardless of what we do now.
As for your first point, that’s a fair statement. Human rights are Human rights. However, im talking more about civil rights. Civil rights are taken away all the time. You lose your right in the USA to vote, to own firearms if convicted of a felony.
You lose your right to live in a certain places if convicted of sex crimes.
If you are a Nazi, you definitely still deserve the human rights. But you shouldn’t have a say in how anything is decided. You shouldn’t have the right to vote, because you will always vote to attack minorities for no reason. You shouldn’t have the right to own a gun.
Wow, that’s pretty crazy to think that so many people can’t/won’t get a bank account. Are these people undocumented immigrants with no identification? Is this the same part of the population that is targeted by the ID laws for voting?
How are those people getting money? Is it really possible in the USA to just be paid with an envelope of cash? Or is it under the table work? Or if they are poor, is there any kind of benefit/welfare from the government? Don’t they need a bank account to receive those funds?
I’m just asking because in my country, I was able to open a bank account for free. I’ve had it for a year and I’ve never even deposited any money into it. But I have a debit card for that account. It seems impossible to me to have no access to a bank account. Even if you’re homeless, you’re still able to use your town hall as a contact address for official things.
I think there’s a big reason why treating them the same way they treat others is fine.
The people that Nazis target are not only usually innocent, but they often don’t even have a choice in the reason for their bullying. You don’t choose to be non-white, be gay, be trans, etc.
Nazis choose to be pieces of shit that hurt innocent people.
The argument that people bring up for not treating them badly is that we don’t want to set a precedent in case the Nazis eventually get in control and decide being on the left is worthy of being deprived your rights.
But I think we all know that they wouldn’t need a precedent to deprive you of your rights if they took control and didn’t like you. They would simply do it if they had the power.
For sure, I agree it should be used only in cases where we’re absolutely sure that they did it. For example, mass shooters that are taken into custody mid-shooting and there is an absolutely undeniable chain of custody to ensure that the wrong person isn’t getting killed.
That doesn’t seem possible, at least in my country. The fact that we have executed people that turned out to be incocent later makes my stomach turn.
I don’t have a problem with the state killing people in principle. I just have a problem with the state killing the incorrect people (actual, guilty people that don’t deserve to live).
Is this actually an unpopular opinion? For sure horrible like all things in war, but I understand that the alternative was an invasion with a hell of a lot more casualties.
Should the USA have invaded Japan instead?
I guess that depends on what they meant by “land”. Is marble land?
Or maybe no marble for anyone. The only materials we can use are non-land based.
Good luck even owning a car if the metal and fuel have to be taken from the land! A wooden frame bicycle would be possible, maybe? Would you be able to use rubber? Idk anything about how rubber is processed, but that also probably uses land-based stuff either as a fuel or some sort of chemical.
The ground floor is usually on top of a foundation that is on top of the land, no? I guess if it was a dirt floor, you wouldn’t own it.
I’ve been a fan of Star Wars since I was a kid. But Disney’s management of this IP has totally ruined it for me. I still haven’t seen The Rise of Skywalker after the trash that was The Last Jedi. They also seem to be focusing on pumping out as much content as possible, which has diluted any feelings of longing I had to see more.
They also need to branch out a bit more. The best of new star wars imo (Rogue one, Mando, and Andor) are so awesome because they focus any other aspect of the immense galaxy instead of focusing on the same 1 family from sand planet.
The puritans at lemmy.ml censor “word-for-female-dog-beginning-with-B”. All comments that you see as a member of that instance are censored before being shown to you.
Can’t recommend it enough. The joke per minute rate is up there with -if not surpases - “Airplane!”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Any survey of people’s religions will have a category for people to answer “no belief/atheism”. OP seems interested in what people believe and what led them to have that belief. I don’t think answering with Atheism is going against that.
In this case, couldn’t an artist simply not disclose that they used AI for things like script writing or character creation? It would be on the public to figure it out, wouldn’t it? It’s not necessary to prove that you didn’t use AI in creating the works, is it?