pigeonburger
2hr ago
So even if you increase the number of law enforcement in the field to a stratospheric number, that still doesn't mean they have to do jack all.
Yeah, but what we're talking here is an hypothetical scenario where we were addressing the fact that they don't have to do anything. My point was that the gun control side doesn't want to get into this discussion because discussing this gets to close to discussing how even if they were forced to defend the population, you'd need even more police than in the worst police states for them to actually be close enough to stop most violent crimes in time.
pigeonburger
4hr ago
I imagine it's not a conversation they enjoy, since inevitably it would force them to address the fact that unless we increase the amount of cops by orders of magnitude, they simply cannot be there to protect people in many or most cases. Not that their policy choice cannot be defended despite this, after all the optimal number of children drowning in pools is not zero. But the gun control side puts a lot of effort in thinking around this, as it feels wrong in a primal way, especially for men (and blue tribe men are still men, they do feel the macho impulse to be providers and protectors), that they are not trusted with the tools to defend their family or themselves and need to rely on people who are not likely to be present when it counts. It's not great to have to go and acknowledge "Yeah, some people are going to die helpless without means to defend themselves, but such is the price of safety", the same way the opposite side doesn't enjoy acknowledging that "some people are going to get shot with guns being legal but such is the price of freedom and self-reliance".
The main argument is that the simplicity of UBI (are you a citizen? do you have a pulse? congrats, here's your check!) compared to the complex mesh of benefits that make current safety nets makes for a flatter administrative landscape that leaves less cover for corruption and grift to hide in.
Not that it makes much of a difference when government is indifferent to it, as can be attested with how brazen the examples of Somali fraud we've seen recently were. But at least, if the government cares, in the case of UBI avoiding corruption and grift would be easier, as there's really only three ways one could abuse it: claim to be a citizen if they aren't, claim someone is alive when they aren't, claim they haven't recieved the money when they have.
pigeonburger
1d ago
Liberty is important!
Anglo Canada's founding stock is specifically selected for people who don't think so.
pigeonburger
1d ago
Yep, the advice I'd give a teen who wants a comfortable life now is about 180 opposed to what was the default when I was teen; move as far as you can stomach to large cities and go into trades instead of higher education. Or if you want to set yourself up, work in a trade in the city while living a frugal lifestyle for 5 years and get yourself a sizeable downpayment for a house in a rural area.
It's funny because anyone who answered not sure or no to the first one should be disqualified in having an opinion about the whole thing to begin with; it's a question with an answer about as close to an objective factual answer in military and geopolitical terms (which of course is yes), as it's one of the boundaries of the crucial GIUK gap, control of which limits Russian access to the Atlantic. If someone doesn't think it's strategically important to deny Russian warships access to the Atlantic, then I really wonder WHAT they consider strategically important!
3rd question is missing important context (instead of purchasing it? if purchasing it fails? if Russia or China gain influence or control of part of the island?)
4th question is doing the opposite, it's typical media bullshit of using the poll as diffusion of information rather than measurement, the pollster is more interested in telling people that the US is allowed to build military bases on Greenland by an existing agreement than taking proper measure of public sentiment.
I'm also baffled by the 3% who don't think it's strategically important, but aren't sure the US shouldn't build more bases there.
Not that, as the majority of people failing on the first question shows, public sentiment on it can be expected to be very sophisticated.
pigeonburger
1d ago
France should give Poland security guarantees
Historically that has worked out so well for Poland in deterring invasion. And for France, for that matter.
pigeonburger
4d ago
Maybe F1 The Movie, heard some noise about that one.
pigeonburger
6d ago
It's not exactly multiplayer in that sense, but I suggest taking a look at Death Stranding. The game's main theme is how cooperation is better than isolation, and the gameplay is tuned to deliver that message. When you first enter a region, the game forces you through a painful slog with pretty much no help from other players. Then slowly as you do deliveries for NPCs in the area the game allows more and more player built infrastructure in your game. When you use someone's infrastructure you can spam "likes" on it, which the creator of the infrastructure might see; those do essentially nothing (not completely but pretty much) except convey your gratitude. Eventually, you'll find yourself building roads or zipline networks through regions you don't have to stay in anymore because you just want to be helpful.
While I agree with you on most of your scenarios that there should be repercussions, there is a distinction between crime and legal repercussions (which could be civil lawsuits).
More options
Context Copy link