this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
359 points (94.8% liked)

Ask Lemmy

30697 readers
2061 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.

~~Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion~~

Edit2: IP= intellectal property

Edit3: sort by controversal

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lapping147@lemm.ee 6 points 1 hour ago

Buy local goods, even is it cost more... most people will go for cheapest price, even if you're handing your money to warlords and human trafficking.. same argument every time "There will always be ".

It

[–] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 9 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

From my point of view of life, it feels like the belief of "Do unto others as you would like others to do to you" is no longer something most people seem to believe in.

[–] Ironfist79@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I kind of like "treat others the way they treat other people."

[–] 4grams@awful.systems 3 points 2 hours ago

Feel like these days it’s “do unto others what you imagine others would to do unto you.”

[–] CybranM@feddit.nu 40 points 4 hours ago (5 children)

That cats should remain indoors. Pet cats kill approximately 2.4 billion birds in the US alone, not to mention all the other animals that they also kill. I love cats as much as the next guy but keep them indoors for the love of nature

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

That cats should remain indoors.

In my experience, humans do tend to prefer this policy but cats do not. Consequently, outdoor cats tend to be cats that are particularly good at getting outside in defiance of their owners' interests - either by physical escape or social manipulation.

[–] ZeffSyde@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Plus, they are %99 less likely to get hit by a car or eaten by a coyote.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LordGimp@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Counterpoint: leash laws for cats on non-private property. You can and should be able to take your cat for a walk, but you definitely shouldn't let those little murder machines out on their own.

[–] CybranM@feddit.nu 2 points 2 hours ago

I wouldnt say its a counter point. A cat on a leash is definitely fine. Its letting the cats roam freely that is the problem

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pachrist@lemmy.world 11 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

I have two.

There is no such thing as toxic masculinity or toxic femininity. There is only toxic individualism.

Sometimes, you shouldn't be yourself. The person you are might be awful. Bullying and societal pressure correcting you to a norm can be a good thing.

[–] the_q@lemm.ee 1 points 55 minutes ago

Explain norm.

[–] AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

There is no such thing as toxic masculinity

I beg to differ. I've been self-repressed for many years from speaking about my problems with my close ones because of toxic aspects of the social understanding of masculinity that I absorbed.

[–] pachrist@lemmy.world 1 points 47 minutes ago

Same, but when I began really looking at it and trying to overcome it, I found it's a very universal experience, certainly not divided by gender.

When you look at these odd archetypes of what people want out of the ideal man or woman, they all share the same core. Strong, independent, doesn't need help, doesn't want help. The individualistic experience is such a sad, lonely, miserable, experience. They want to be able to go it alone, but in hundreds of thousands of years of truly human existence, going it alone is such an exception. Our weights and burdens and lives are meant to be shared. They always have been and always will be.

For example, I have a 4 year old son who has been infatuated with ballet for a couple months now. There are dads today who are beating their sons for liking ballet. It's terrible. But it's not that ballet is "queer" or that men don't do ballet. There are plenty of men who are queer. There are plenty of men who do ballet. But, I don't do ballet. If I beat my son, it's because I am making it about myself. I don't want a son who does ballet. That is as narcissistic and individualistic as it gets.

That's not to say that it's not toxic masculinity, just that the toxic masculinity is narcissism in a trench coat.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 21 points 4 hours ago

Violence against oil company shareholders is justified defense of yourself and others. Starting with a face slap for small-time diversified 401k oil investors.

[–] tomenzgg@midwest.social 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Understanding disability thought and theory is one of the foundations of marginalization justice but one of the most invisible such that, once you understand certain tenants, it's impossible not to see the impact of their ideas in everything in daily life.

[–] anon_most@lemmy.world 31 points 5 hours ago (8 children)

Open borders. I strongly believe in open borders as a moral imperative. Human beings have been migrating for survival, resources, and exploration for over 20,000 years. The concept of nation-states imposing constraints on movement is a modern invention that doesn't align with the inherent human need for freedom of mobility. People in the southwestern states of the US with Mexican roots will tell you "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us."

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] mrodri89@lemmy.zip 33 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

The stock market should be illegal in all countries. Its basically a legalized gambling ponzii scheme.

Retirement also shouldn't be tied to this type of system.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I'll spot you the second one, for certain. The idea of retirement being pegged to the market indexes is a big mistake, as it inversely correlates the need for labor with the supply and generates that supply in a population least capable of supplying it. You don't want a bunch of 65 year olds retiring during a bull market, when equity prices are high and demand for labor is stretched thin. You don't want a bunch of 70+ year olds trying to re-enter the labor force during a recession.

To the first one... equity markets aren't gambling. They are, fundamentally, lending markets. The purpose of the stock market is to create a public space for businesses to borrow cash at rates below that of the bank lending rates. That's fine and good, actually. And I might even consider it a better alternative to traditional retail bank lending, as the modern financial system is a dead weight loss on both public and private business activities.

What I might add, in order to curb the impulse to speculatively invest, is to fix the price of equity at some price-to-earnings ratio range. The speculative investment in firms occurs at the margins - with firms like Palantir and Tesla enjoying prices well in excess of their revenues, while firms like Berkshire Hathaway are trading at surprisingly good rates. The ponzi scheme aspect is in the marketing of equities - often with miserable balance sheets - as safe and profitable.

Trading around index funds is comparatively safe over the long term and a good way to incentivize both savings and capital growth domestically. The trick is in enforcing strong sound regulations without those regulatory firms being captured by the businesses they seek to regulate. But arbitrarily decreeing that all businesses need to vet their lending through private banks doesn't solve the problem of speculation. It just pushes the speculation onto the spreadsheets of retail banks.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›