I figured using “government” would result in some disconnect, but I’m not sure what else I would call a centralized authority responsible for making and carrying out societal decisions.
Anyways, it doesn’t matter if I’m part of the government. The issue remains.
Only if there’s a viable path to transition to that state, and it’s a stable state. It could also only be a local minimum. The effect you’re describing is real, but there’s no guarantee that it will lead to your proposed societal system, and furthermore there’s no guarantee that the effect is deterministic and will necessarily lead to the same solution unless it is the only solution.
Fair enough. I think you’re right to question these things; people have very strong opinions with hard lines here, but I don’t think there’s always solid reasoning for why some things that may seem like an obvious hard line are considered one.
Right, but I could not get a job unless it’s first been created by the government. What if the government doesn’t want to create a job that’s necessary? What about jobs that aren’t necessary, but are still desirable? If I have artistic skill, would I get an appropriate amount of work vouchers? Would skill factor in at all, or only time spent working? What is my invcentive to be efficient if skill is not a factor? If skill is a factor, who determines what “skill” is? Do we vote to make 10 furniture maker jobs and one “expert furniture maker” job with appropriate salaries?
You don’t have to answer all of those, I’m mostly just saying that this would result in a LOT of centralized control, which would have to be handled with a large amount of nuance, and that deciding these things by vote isn’t likely to work (see also, the most recent election).
All work would be paid for? Who decides what “work” is?
We need to get conservatives to realize how badly they messed up by voting for this dipshit and medicaid/medicare/aca cuts are the time to make it known
Mostly that the central planning authority gets to decide which work is meaningful enough to get paid for
Interesting. That could work. Feels a little draconian though.
I’ve been thinking of starting some sort of group to help with that goal-- would you be interested? I’m not sure what we could do, but I want to do something, you know? I figure the best impact I can have is to convince other people that I mostly agree with to adopt this approach, which is what I envision the group could help with.
Agreed 100%. I’m glad we’re collectively starting to realize this. It’s a bit late, but hopefully it’ll still do good.
I feel like one obvious answer is “stop being so eager to alienate cis straight white men”
being correct isn’t enough
A very valuable lesson, and it’s very fitting who said it
It’s dependent on a caretaker, but not necessarily on its own mother. Neural development also does take a big step starting at birth because the baby is now receiving stimuli.
If someone has no mind – such as a brain-dead patient – then they aren’t really a person.
This is gonna be a fun thread
It’s arguably ignoring their preferences, but how is it misgendering? they/them is gender neutral-- it implies nothing about their gender at all.
That’s a false equivalence. A name is a unique identifier while pronouns serve only a mechanical linguistic purpose.
because that helps reduce “othering” a group
Which is, ironically, what the pronoun-stating thing was supposed to avoid. Personally I agree that it’s not really necessary, and that it actually is a form of compelled speech.
LVs would have their own problems-- if I do work for someone else, can they just create LVs to give to me? Do they get to create however many they want?
Why are you centrist? To clarify, if you make your political decisions yourself but almost always happen to align with one of the parties, I would consider you in that party rather than a centrist.
Mental health focused communities exascerbate their members’ issues
Whoa, is this from Mastodon?