Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Most pets were stolen for their resale value. After that, it’s for more nefarious means like dog fighting or breeding. Designer breeds and bully breeds are by far the most stolen. People fail to think very critically, so they forget there is a massive stray population and homeless people don’t need to steal pets to have them.
Homelessness, similar to crime, is a social issue which could be solved by providing everyone with their basic human needs.
But the Christians are often confused by the whole WWJD thing and get very bent out of shape when it’s suggested.
This is no different than making derogatory blanket statements about Muslims or Jews.
Most pets were stolen for their resale value. After that, it’s for more nefarious means like dog fighting or breeding. Designer breeds and bully breeds are by far the most stolen. People fail to think very critically, so they forget there is a massive stray population and homeless people don’t need to steal pets to have them.
so why did you make a model saying "even if they steal one each", when a single person could have stolen hundreds across the years?
that doesn't inculpate homeless people but it completely destroys your claim that being a tiny minority they can't be responsible of a significant portion of those crimes
I can't recall ever seeing a homeless person with a designer dog or any sort of desirable dog-- only ever mutts.
Being homeless in London is an oxymoron, the **** are you doing in London if you are poor to begin with.
Just noticed this and it's silly enough that I feel the need to respond. Obviously most cities have poverty, and London is no different. Do you think London is like Dubai or something (I mean, I assume they have some poverty there, but seems like it's pretty much a rich people's playground)?
It's one of those things that one instinctively knows when it's right, a bit like a fine pint of real ale.
Are the ones in power who instinctively know when it's right going to have less money and greed than D2?
Homelessness isn't the simple solution that a lot of people would like to think it is. A lot of them won't accept help. I live near a major US city with a ton of homeless people and just pouring money into the problem isn't enough. Have you ever given food to a homeless person, only to have them throw it back at you? Brought someone to your home to feed them and offered to find them a place for the night, and they basically tell you to **** off because they don't like the food and then turn down the offer? Met someone who actually prefers that life? I'm not saying there aren't people who would be grateful for help, but when it comes to those who want it and will reciprocate, they're the minority.
If we're talking about mental health and addiction, pouring money into programs will only do so much. Most people will leave programs, go back to using, etc. Also, the quality of care problem is just as bad as the access issue, and neither of those are preventative. If my city had housing projects with thousands of units and said, "You can live here as long as you go to therapy, stay sober, respect the property, hold a job, etc., guess what? Most of them wouldn't. Now, what do you do with someone who doesn't show up to treatment, trashes their unit or continues to use drugs? It seems like the choice is to either follow the guidelines or get kicked out. The other options are putting them in jail or involuntary stays at psychiatric hospitals. I'm not saying we shouldn't empathize with the homeless or try to solve the problem, but acting like just giving them a room and some basic necessities misses the mark by a mile.
UP has the solution….concentration camps for the homeless on the edge of cities where you don’t have to see them.
What's UP?
A supposedly liberal politics forum run by people who used to post and mod here.
I found them quite right wing at times but that surprises me.
Are you allowed to describe a certain group of people as neurotic and rude? I have a friend who is just getting into posting and asked my advice.
Are you allowed to describe a certain group of people as neurotic and rude? I have a friend who is just getting into posting and asked my advice.
It's going to depend on whether or not they're a protected class.
"Conservatives are neurotic" is ok
"Azerbaijanis are rude" not ok.
it also depends if your friend belongs to that group
This is a fair point. Rickroll, you keep saying you're a liberal, but the positions you seem to take on most issues are pretty conservative. What is it that makes you a liberal?
you're falsely attributing identity politics to being a liberal cornerstone when instead it's a brand new fringe element that has emerged and hijacked the party
remove identity politics, and i'm 85/15 dem/gop split in terms of policy
mind you, my senior thesis was that w bush was a more liberal president than clinton (if you remove the party affiliation and just look purely at his policies, they were all grounded on traditional democratic policy platforms - this was because his administration was heavily influenced by the neocons, former democrats who fled the party for the GOP because they felt like the democratic party was a feckless disaster in foreign policy and saw no hope for that to change from within so they jumped ship to the other side figuring it would be easier to insert liberal ideology into that party than to turn the democratic party into one with a capable foreign policy
Technically, you're correct. But you see, since it's open season on MAGA, it thereby follows that they're being oppressed. And if I've learned anything, it's that we need to protect the oppressed. The solution, it seems, is to prohibit any criticism of MAGA that doesn't come from within. The point is that you shouldn't call someone a MAGAtard unless you're MAGA.
Technically, you're correct. But you see, since it's open season on MAGA, it thereby follows that they're being oppressed. And if I've learned anything, it's that we need to protect the oppressed. The solution, it seems, is to prohibit any criticism of MAGA that doesn't come from within. The point is that you shouldn't call someone a MAGAtard unless you're MAGA.
I'm not convinced that it does thereby follow.
