ExLisper @ ExLisper @linux.community

Posts

17

Comments

1,820

Joined

3 yr. ago

Great, I guess I will just go to a store a buy one of those .

I totally get what you're saying but I think there's just so much pressure from society that it's all terribly biased. Last week I saw another very long article from a woman wondering if she should have kids or not and the comment section was full of people talking like they just realized having kids is optional. Watch any American TV show and you'll see how ingrained the idea that having kids is mandatory is. Average person is so programmed by society and media to have kids people think it's just what you have to do and yes, they will try to justify it but saying that it's actually very rewarding. I'm not saying that no one should have kids but I actually think that very few people have kids because they enjoy it. We're talking couples with good jobs, good benefits, lot's of family support and lot's of money. Most people don't have any of this but they still have kids.

Yeah, I've heard that argument and I don't buy it. What I see is people that are really burned out and borderline depressed. I don't believe a hug from their child before sleep fixes that. I believe it keeps them from going crazy but I don't think it makes it all worth it. Most people will simply not admit it because it's taboo.

Yeah, I'm not talking about the public system seriously. It's just to show it's not really about systematic solutions. We can come up with government supported solutions and they would be bad.

And I totally agree that if you don't have to work raising kids is not that terrible but it's also not really a solution because most people do actually want to work. If you give people a choice between kids and meaningful career a lot of people will still choose career and birth rates will still be low. And a lot of people will still simply choose not to have kids because even when you don't have to work bringing up a kid is actually really really difficult. My friends and co-workers keep having kids and yeah, sleep deprivation, no social life, no time for hobbies, lots of extra expenses, constant infections, hard time travelling even short distance... And that's only the first year or two, before any behavioural issues start or you have to decide if you prefer to give you're 10 yo unrestricted access to the internet or have him excluded from everything his friends do.

The real reason why people don't have kids is because they suck. Kids are stupid and annoying. More and more people are waking up to this fact and starting to resist the social pressure."I can actually live my life instead of dedicating all my time and resources to something I don't even need? I'll have two of that please!"

If government wants kids let them raise the kids. Pay women to give birth and then put the kid in public system. Problem solved.

Stop saying that. Not having kids is not selfish. Having kids is selfish. You create a human just because you want to own one.

It's bad for capitalism and the 1%. You can't have infinite growth with falling population numbers.

Edit: A lot of people claiming it's also bad for the young and old people. It depends on how you're social services are structured. Where I live the system is set up so that everyone only gets back the money they put into the system. That's what the EU recommendations are and where all the EU countries are moving. Yes, the retirements will be lower in the future but that's the only way to make the system sustainable without major cuts to everything else. IMHO it's better than the idea of infinite growth.

No it doesn't. It does the exact opposite.

I guess his supreme court nomination are void then. Nice.

Now you have catphishing, ransomwere, lot's of different types of scammers and your credit cards can be stolen from some random e-commerce site. You also need to know what you're doing.

Ok, so I'm thinking that theyo pay out some money in damages and the retirement found looses 10% of assets. The projected retirements for cops that are still working gets lowered. The cops closest to retirement lose less, for example 5%, younger cops loose more, for example 15%.

You're saying that in this situation those younger cops will just keep doing what they're doing hoping that they will lose all the money and get bailed out? I'm thinking they will start complaining about the aggressive cops that cost THEM actually money. It's not about taking away all their retirement. It's about slowly lowering it down so that they start paying attention. I think it would work. But of course it will never happen. We're just playing fantasy politics here.

It doesn't matter if they quit or not. It's the police department that pays damages, no matter if the cops still work there or not (this is how it works now). Once the retirement found looses some $ and the retirements gets lowered cops will be very quick to report bad apples before they actually kill someone (as they should be doing now).

What the internet was like? Glorious! No stupid internet points, no followers, no tracking. Just random content. Good times...

Just today I took a quick look at a Tesla stopped in front of me and saw 3 misaligned parts. In like 10 seconds. Quality is shit.

Except I don't think the officers are ever found liable, only the police departments.

Paying damages out of police retirement founds would be a simple, one step, foolproof solution to this problem. You don't want lower retirement? Stop breaking the law. Oh, you're one of the 5 good cops in the country and this would hurt you even though you did nothing wrong? Actually report the bad cops instead just watching. Thanks.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.

Let's hope so.

The infuriating thing is not that Saudis are doing this. The infuriating part is that the west still treats then like allies and protects them.

Great, we have the "what about X" comment. Now we just need "China pollutes more than US" and "I can't buy an EV because I drive 10.000 miles a day" comment and we can close this thread.