If people want to advocate that overpopulation isn't a problem, they should live in dhaka or other densely packed poor areas. Anyone living in developed countries have no idea how it is to live there.
US population density = under 100 per mile^2
SF population density = 18k per mile^2
Major cities in Bangladesh, India, Phillipines have well over 50k/ml^2
Those countries also have nation wide population density of over 500/ml^2 at least.
Most people there can't buy an electric vehicle any time soon. They don't have tall buildings or functional transportation. They don't have enough jobs. The pollution levels are worse. Their countries have more corruption and less rights for everyone. They don't have enough drinking water or land for agriculture geographically.
Overpopulation makes solving all the problems harder.
Speaking for myself, my friends and I would do this as teens in '99 with a open protocol chat program called MIRC. This was chatting with strangers, and back then everyone opened conversations by asking "ASL?" which meant "Age, Sex, Location".
We figured out pretty early on that by saying "Female", you opened yourself up to a torrent of creepy come-ons, which to us was absolutely hilarious. Here was this complete stranger who did not have so much as a profile picture to go off of, either professing his undying love to you after a few messsages, or straight up using abusive and degrading language.
As an old millenial now, it's been pretty shocking to me how open Gen Z is about revealing numerous identifying details about themselves on social networks. I'm under 40 and we were raised to protect our privacy online, and this was when surveillance tech was in the stone ages.
I believe it is a mistake to think that. I have some notes from an undergraduate course in digital signal processing, dated 1979. There is a section written by someone from "Joint Speech Research Unit, Cheltenham" there can only be one organisation in that town interested in researching speech, good friends of No Such Agency.
But it's precisely that. The prevailing attitude is that, well, advertisers are going to track that you googled "ob/gyn prenatal care XYZ area" and hostiles are going to be able to doxx you anyway -- you have to take proactive measures to ensure privacy so fuck it.
I think it's a pretty broad hobby for early teenagers and children. For me personally, I just thought it was funny. It's also interesting, because you find out very fast that there's some guys just a little too into it when you say you're a 13yo girl. That I think informs your behaviour online also. It's a consequence-free way to learn about loads of impulses other people have, without the shadow of adult oversight.
When I was a young teen my friends and I picked female avatars on Runescape because we'd get free items from presumably male players. Sometimes you'd have to 'flirt back' but inevitably you'd get some good items, gold, and some creepy messages. As a 14 year old kid, it was hilarious to think about some sad older man flirting via Runescape gifts.
I had this happen as recently as probably 2007. I was in my 20s at the time, and it also happened in an online game (WoW). Albeit, my experience certainly wasn't deliberate.
For whatever reason, I've almost always preferred playing female characters, but it quickly became an eye-opener to me how creepy other dudes are online. One of the more abusive of these sorts (funny at the time until I realized it was a behavior he probably continued to actual woman) was when I'd gone in to help some RL friends who were stuck in a dungeon, and they had this random chap in the group. As soon as I joined up, he started hitting on me. I ignored it for a while until it started getting really strange, and I told him rather flatly:
"I'm a dude, dude."
He went ballistic and called me all manner of names, inferring that I must clearly be homosexual because I was playing a woman (not sure how that works). After launching into his insults, he quickly left the group. I think he tried harassing me via private messages, but I blocked him by that point.
It occurred to me sometime later that the fact he realized he was hitting on another guy must have challenged his sexuality and made him incredibly uncomfortable doubtless leading to his anger and lashing out.
I noticed this behavior dropped off dramatically in the years following, either because more dudes (like me) were playing female characters and the creepy sorts realized it was a minefield to take the risk against random other players who may or may not troll them. Or perhaps harassment of the sort started to be taken seriously by the moderation team as the number of women playing increased.
I have reasons to doubt the latter and suspect it's a combination of the former. I also suspect most of the harassment was probably concentrated in guilds by that point where I wasn't as likely to see it firsthand as I played largely with people I personally knew. Leastwise, the weird random encounters dropped off precipitously within about a year.
It's true: The experience was eye-opening to me, and that was what--13 years ago? Actually longer, now that I think about it, since I started playing at release in 2004 (also on female characters).
And you're right, I think it's a valuable experience that has to be seen to be believed. It's easy for me to post about it here, but it's difficult to convey how annoying it was (at best). Not simply from borderline sexual harassment either. There was, at the time, an undercurrent of harassing accusation that any dude playing a female character clearly had to be "gay." Looking back on it, this whole idiotic and immature belief was laughable, because all the gay guys we had in our guild played male characters. They also gave me a hard time for being hit on with some regularity, so at least there was some levity among our group to make light of an otherwise sad and disgraceful situation.
Unfortunately, that's not the only circumstance I can remember. There's easily half a dozen others varying from odd to outright creeper material that stand out, though not as much as the one I shared above. I figure if it happened to me that frequently, it's absolutely happening to women whom other players know are women MUCH more often. It wasn't just limited to long term encounters, either. Just standing around waiting for something as a female character in the early days of the game sometimes painted me as a potential target.
A friend of mine who also played female characters--and who moonlighted as a stand-up comedian--had similar experiences, but his dialog was absolutely hilarious to watch.
I am pretty certain it’s especially fun for kids to discover what men are into so that when they finally grow up they could be better in touch with their own needs
Poster said he was a teenager. For adolescences, everything around sexuality is interesting. Some of those men he was tricking were probably other teenagers pretending to be adults!
It's mind blowing the number of people who are defending apple everywhere by making any excuse they can. Some of them have comments implying otherwise if you check their history but apple gets a leeway. Is there some kind of cognitive dissonance?
Why are people so attached to a greedy corp worth 2 trillion whose entire business rely on child and exploitative labour, has avoided billions in taxes, has been bullying others legally, don't want you to own anything or repair (climate?), etc?
People who have overused whataboutism as a logical fallacy to stop an argument are doing the same today themselves.
Stop government officials from making policies on twitter and we will consider twitter private company. Still, no one thinks there should be additional regulation on something like twitter? The past account hack just made me think it should be scrutinized more.
Twitter has the freedom to allow public officials to use the service for either personal or professional purposes. Many government agencies in many countries use Twitter to communicate with citizens via the service, similar to how they use Facebook or e-mail.
As far as President Trump goes, Twitter has had to make policy exceptions in order to ensure his continued access to the service, AND legal proceedings have also resulted in rulings that govern his specific use of the service (for example, he's technically not allowed to block citizens.) As such it's not especially useful to look at Trump's experience on Twitter and try to generalize it to anyone else.
I am not saying they shouldn't ban accounts or allow free speechers. But I don't buy they should be allowed to do whatever they want because they are private company. If the past hack resulted in market manipulation or a bigger shit show, should twitter be liable for that?
> It's just hard for me to take a any positive feedback from a person I pay to listen to the said feedback.
If someone is crying, you are getting emotional feedback from that person that they need help. They could cry for any number of reasons but the feedback they provide you by crying remains the same until you discuss it more. Paid feedback or not - outsiders will provide you similar feedback that will be relevant to you because they are able to empathize (that is if you are honest).
But I get you. if you think of paid feedback as fake reviews on playstore, you will get discouraged. It's hard to give a fake plausible review and it's quick to spot for human interaction though.
The problem is he jumped. He didn't have access to health professionals who will assess him before he could die. He wouldn't have jumped if he knew he could die in a more peaceful and controlled manner without shame. An euthanasia facility would have given him a second chance if it was properly maintained. They don't let you kill as you pass the door. They will make you wait, have you try things to help you before you could sign off the paper to die.
I don't see why it should be illegal. it's like being against addiction control centres.
The thing is why does everyone seem to forget here that some people don't have money, resources, family, environment or location to get access to many things that could help. Poor people surely will get happy if they get money, right? Surely therapy without a single worry in life will help them, right?
Do you tell others to think about how happy you could be in a few years when they are sad? No, you don't.
Do you encourage systematically poor people to suck it up because things will get better?
Same mentality is used to justify racial injustices and inequality. Things will get better in future so suck it up for the movement. These people are in pain and should be able to stop it if they see it not worth it. Obviously there can be some time period such as a year or two before you can access euthanasia. Otherwise, it's cruel to let people suffer for years in false hopes.
I don't know how things work where you are, but I tend to reason based on the context and environment I know.
Over here, we have a universal social security. While imperfect, incredibly bureaucratic, and hard to navigate at times, it ensures everyone can get access to most if not all medical care, for free for those who are in extremely precarious financial situations.
But that is a political and social choice that was made in this country decades ago, and it is true it is not the same in many other places.
Now, I want to believe this isn't what you meant, but another way to read your response could be "It'll take too long and it's too hard, too expensive, to help poor people out of their pain. We should instead let them put themselves out of their misery"
> Another way to read your response could be "It'll take too long and it's too hard, too expensive, to help poor people out of their pain. We should instead let them put themselves out of their misery"
No. We should never stop trying to help people but if the help is causing suffering to others. It should not be done beyond a reasonable duration. What that reasonable duration is - I don't know. 2 years? 5 years? A decade? All are valid answers. It is highly contextual.
Regardless of that, having legal euthansia is better than not having it at all.
Then we agree. I'd add a matter of means to the duration. Simply having someone fill out a form and wait 2, 3, 5 or 10 years isn't enough. There needs to be an actual process, with the intention and means to help figure out what other solutions we can offer, and try them out where appropriate.
Funny you referenced this comment. I actually wrote it :-)
Wait I referenced the wrong one but you replied to the correct one already. Yeah I don't think duration alone is enough as mentioned in the other comment.
I believe in planned euthanasia. If I am getting crunky and old, there is a point where I would consider a peaceful death and celebrate it myself. I will have chance to say goodbye. Similarly, a depressed person after trying reasonable number of methods and spending enough effort, should be able to consider it as an option. Not everyone will end up hopeful and that's fine. We shouldn't try to pressure or shame that. Currently, too many people end up ruining their life through failed attempts. Many end up dying who could have been saved if they had legal system and society that gave them an alternative option. Many are currently suffering with terminal illness or mental health problems that won't be fixed any time soon. All three categories will benefit from a legal euthanasia system.
There are people who live through the day thinking that they could end it all if things go too wrong. It can stem from unhealthy environment but it might not always be that way. These people are ready to get help if they have a choice in the matter.
>> Some people are hurt by women's right to abortion. Are you against abortion?
Actually, in some cases you can make the same argument against abortion as already made in this thread against euthanasia for depressed people:
since the pregnant woman is most affected by the unwanted pregnancy, and maybe feeling like her whole life is falling apart because of it, then maybe that woman in her mental state shouldn't be making decision about abortion on her own.
The sad thing is, some western countries try to penalize putting any "pressure" on her, even if the attempt to influence her decision is coming from the child's father, or woman's family members.
These are nowhere near sweeping generalizations. I am making small hypothetical examples against the case "anyone who wants to die should immediately be able to do so". My aim is to show there are at least a few cases where this is not the case.
As for your questions. I actually think that sometimes doing things that hurt people is to be accepted. For example, sometimes (SOMETIMES, NOT ALWAYS, POSSIBLY EVEN RARELY) it is better to not allow someone to end their life. Similarly, sometimes it is better for someone to end their life even if that would hurt others.
US population density = under 100 per mile^2
SF population density = 18k per mile^2
Major cities in Bangladesh, India, Phillipines have well over 50k/ml^2
Those countries also have nation wide population density of over 500/ml^2 at least.
Most people there can't buy an electric vehicle any time soon. They don't have tall buildings or functional transportation. They don't have enough jobs. The pollution levels are worse. Their countries have more corruption and less rights for everyone. They don't have enough drinking water or land for agriculture geographically.
Overpopulation makes solving all the problems harder.