• 31 Posts
  • 500 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 12th, 2023

help-circle








  • The community is called “no stupid questions” so I won’t say this is a stupid question, but damn if this isn’t the most ‘murican question I’ve seen.

    Your question seems heavily weighted by the idea that a child is only the responsibility of the people who brought it into the world, which is completely wrong even if it is a fundamental assumption of an individualistic capitalist society like America. It’s a backwards notion to say that someone who has a right to live can have that right taken away because it’s too much of a burden to help them live; life is the exact thing that an organized society ought to be focused on protecting, otherwise what good is that society?

    People say “it takes a village to raise a child” and while that is seldom followed especially in America, it is absolutely true. Raising a human being is among the hardest jobs imaginable, full stop. The abilities and needs of that child have to be considered every step of the way because it is among the most important jobs imaginable. If that child is ever treated like a burden, then something in that society has failed. It’s not just the parents’ responsibility to raise them, it is everyone’s.

    Should a parent be allowed to euthanize a burden? No. 100% no. That parent needs to enlist help, and honestly help structures should be built into that society.

    Lastly, the way you phrase your question is really concerning. “Parents should be able to euthanize their children, because it is better to be dead than feel like a burden.” I hope you can see that whatever convinced you that it’s better to be dead than a burden is utterly wrong. You matter, OP, for no reason other than that you exist <3


  • “Hey, Bill”

    “Yeah, Tom?”

    “You know that video game that’s basically just a lame campy horror B-movie but it’s extremely fun and memorable because you can decide whether the characters make the dumb decisions you always yell at the screen and say not to do during said shitty movie? And then you can play it again and see what happens if you change one of the hundreds of your decisions?”

    “Oh yeah I love that game!”

    “What if we turned it into a lame campy horror B-movie?!?!”

    “Dude you’re a fuckin genius!!! No one has made a movie like that before! You can snort some more of my paint chips if you want!”

    That’s how I imagine this movie got greenlit



  • It’s not thought policing. Proton, a company all about privacy, is literally nothing without the trust of its user base. Aligning with someone who is not trustworthy by making a statement that makes no sense (literally saying Trump’s administration will be anti-big tech while it’s been gaining shit tons of support from the Tech Titans Musk, Bezos, and Zuck) completely debases that trust. Additionally it’s not thought policing because companies are not people and cannot think.

    Even if it was thought policing, in line with the Social Contract of Tolerance, there is no room to tolerate, let alone vocally support, fascists.