Skip Navigation
Why don't low birth-rate countries make immigration to their country easier?
  • Did you equate

    No, I was correcting YOUR comparison. I think shaming racists is quite good, while shaming fat people is misguided.

    ignore all the medical and scientific evidence

    The point here is that our value judgements about health aren't medical or scientific. Risky behavior isn't universally frowned upon by society. Often its encouraged.

    In the US, for instance, automobile accidents are a lead cause of death for people under 35, yet we don't treat driving with the same disdain as smoking or obesity. As far as "lack of physical activity" goes, car accidents represent a major source of injuries, which do make people less able to keep up healthy lifestyles. Yet again, little disdain.

    Smoking is a great comparison here, because if you want to take the medical literature seriously you can't just handle it from the consumer end, you also have to deal with industries that employ swaths of food scientists to make bad food addictive and cheap.

    All in all, I do think we could benefit from thinking about why we shame people for things and ask ourselves if we're applying these judgements in a consistent way.

  • Why don't low birth-rate countries make immigration to their country easier?
  • People do die 30 years earlier because they're black - thats often how racism works...

    Imo how do we know what "normal" is and has that been the case for the last 1000 years? The Japanese have employed sumo wrestlers to serve in a sport, for instance. I think its fair to say fat shaming is a more modern phenomena that's occurred more recently as high calorie low nutrition food became mass produced and microplastics have accumulated in all our bodies.

  • Rachel Maddow Warns That SCOTUS Trump Immunity Decision Is ‘a Death Squad Ruling’ | Video
  • the easiest way to fix the courts is to appoint "all american citizens of voting age currently and any future citizen when they reach voting age" to the court - this means presidents would simply no longer be appointing people to the court. The current justices could still write opinions they would just be nonbinding without a vote of the public.

  • “May have just legalized murder by one individual”: Experts alarmed at “stunning” SCOTUS ruling
  • weird that the constitution says nothing about "immunity" but the courts keep creating various forms of it. Its almost like we explicitly need an amendment that says courts are not allowed to declare things "immune" from the law.

  • The first Presidential debate of 2024 will be held today...
  • Its that old thought experiment:

    You run into two presidents one cannot tell the truth and will mostly only respond to comments about himself while the other often mumbles incoherently but occasionally says "the idea, you'd lie about this"

    You need to know how fuck to get out of here. There is no exit.

  • New Feature Request

    I'd like to see what drugs the original poster is on when making a post.

    9
    What was the historical science debate that seems silliest in hind sight?

    I'm thinking of things like heliocentrism where there was some modern discovery or revelation by science that invalidated a common assumption prior.

    My understanding is that flat earth is more a recent phenomena but I'd love to hear some ancient ideas people now miss. Did people think trees weren't alive? Did people think evaporation was where things simply disappeared?

    I'd would love to hear these ideas.

    28
    InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)FE
    Fedizen @lemmy.world
    Posts 2
    Comments 1.7K