Lemmy is left leaning but downvotes anything that suggests poll numbers are slipping for Biden, or if people are unsatisfied with his performance. It’s news! Are y’all just downvoting it because you don’t like it?
Lemmy.world and Lemmy.ca tend to be right-leaning even if they have some Leftist comms. The fediverse still appeals to leftists, but liberals have their own enclaves.
Don’t you know, the downvote button is the dislike button, on pretty much every platform. Also, upvote is agree button. They have nothing to do with whether a comment is relevant to the topic or not.
I just hit upvote and then thought I agree ;)
Suburban homeowners are the real “welfare queens.”
ice cold
The Batman > The Dark Knight
Booooo
I’m upvoting because this is the first actual hot take I found after minutes of scrolling
Drinking, driving, smoking, voting, consent, ability to enter contracts including marriage, joining the military:
Raise it all to 25 and be done with it. At 25 you’re an adult, before that your body and brain are still developing.
I tend to agree, but I would set the age lower. A person can graduate high school at 18, get a 4-year degree, and still be 3 years away from “adulthood” by your definition. There are plenty of professionals in the first 3 years of their career who are contributing members of society. Shouldn’t they be able to drive to work, sign a rental contract, etc? I’ve been in my career for over 20 years, and I have always worked with young people who may be lacking experience but are still productive employees. I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.
I think you’d be cutting out a significant portion of the workforce by excluding those in early adulthood.
I’m guessing their position is very much “oh they still need to work and pay taxes…and they shouldn’t expect any more support than they currently have in order to do so…but they need to figure out how to manage it all without driving, and they should be disenfranchised as well”.
Don’t speak for me, thanks.
My position is “let kids be kids” or maybe more like “let students be students”. We expect a college degree for most jobs these days, so if it’s a requirement let’s, as a society, act like it and prioritize their potential for growth while they have it.
Thinking people in their late teenage years and young adults aren’t mature enough to do some of those things is just a big tell of how bad we educate them rather than their brain not being “developed”.
Consent is the most obvious example, teenagers are gonna have a sexual life no matter what you want them to do. Removing consent just remove yourself from the responsibility of educating them and entice them to stay hidden.
Driving is also just necessary to anyone working, again being safe just need to be taught, plenty of adults are just as immature and stupid.
The same can be said for drinking or smoking, prevention is so much more effective than restrictions.
However, for voting or joining the army that’s when i agree. Because the system is built to prey on them, making sure they stay uneducated and vulnerable. So only then does having restrictions make sens to keep them safe.
I don’t follow your argument about sex ed and consent.
Sex ed should start as soon as kids can talk, to keep it from being stigmatized and to prevent predation. There is no need to wait until a child reaches sexual maturity for that; in fact, at that point it is too late.
As to driving, most people shouldn’t be driving, period. We are, in general, not good at it. Leave it to the professionals.
deleted by creator
Don’t know what’s so funny about that. Teaching your toddler that not everyone can touch their genitals is sex ed, and should absolutely be done as soon as they can understand it…
deleted by creator
Who said this is what sex ed is about?
There’s more than one specific topic covered in sex ed.
We teach math to children, but nobody is suggesting that you need to get your toddler into differential equations.
Only because you think sex is dirty, because you were stigmatized against talking about it at that age.
deleted by creator
I agree, the sooner the better.
Sex ed is what makes children mature enough to have sex once they reach the age of doing it.
But what’s the point of raising the age of consent?
My point is there isn’t any if sex ed is done well, it only makes sex more taboo.
Conversely, if you want to raise it, maybe it’s because sex ed wasn’t done properly, making teens not able to be mature enough for an activity they are gonna do anyway.
For driving, I would agree in general we aren’t good at driving, but changing our means of transport isn’t easy, despite being the best solution. That wasn’t really the topic though…
The post topic is “hot takes”, so my “always curtail driving” position is technically on-topic for the larger thread. ;]
If you want someone learn something like driving well, you teach it to them when they’re developing, not after.
And for the love of all that is holy, please do not give even more political power to old people
Oh no! But you see young people joining the military because of indoctrination or poverty surely are to blame for US interventionism (read terrorism)!!!
If I can’t vote until I’m 25 then I don’t want to be paying tax until I’m 25.
No taxation without representation.
Also, for many areas, a vehicle is a necessity of adult life.
If you’re not letting kids drive at 16, then for that *almost-*decade until they’re 25 you’d better provide free transportation as well.
Since that’s not about to happen, leave it as it is.
provide free transportation
I’m totally on board with this.
Interesting, but don’t you think it would cause issues as well?
We all develop differently and many are mature before 25 while I’ve ceetainly met people who are not even in their thirties. Do you have any research to support 25 being a more fitting age than 18?
Also: if you cannot enter contracts you cannot work. Do you really think everybody should not be able to hold a job until they reach 25?
I worked long before I could legally enter contracts. Only one of my jobs has had an employment contract.
I agree with your point that many reach maturity before 25 or even 18, however I don’t think enabling those fortunate few is worth stripping the protections of minority from the rest.
I’m sure you did, but that is not a good thing. At least where I’m from, a contract is a must have. It states everything related to your job, including tasks, vacation time and salary. Without it you have fewer (or none) legs to stand on should your employer be an ass.
You wouldn’t buy a house without signing the paperwork proving it’s yours and you should not work without a signed contract.
I’m no neuroscientist so I can’t in good faith comment on our development, so I’m only arguing against the contract signing part.
Now THIS is a hot take
That was the assignment!
Uhhh.
Driving shouldn’t be at 25, nor marriage.
Any higher on marriage would be antinatalist, but I’m willing to go higher on driving for sure.
That would just screw over young people
Same for all laws requiring X age.
hot take about the hot take: it’s about marriage, not about having babies.
You are bad at parenting if you give your child a smart phone or social media.
until what age ?
I guess till they become and adult because they are in charge of their decisions at that point.
so they cant use a phone even at 15-17 ? a lot of kids have jobs at that point.
Flip phone or non internet phone. We have a phone for the kids, but its not one that can get them to the internet or sending pictures.
unfortunately they will almost certainly get picked on. i dont think abstinence is the best idea here, better to educate them on the dangers and monitor/restrict what they are using the phone for. lest they hate you. but certainly for someone under 12-14 they do not need a phone.
I hear what you are saying, but I dont want my kids to fit in with those kids, and thus we have them in private schools now. One main issue is even if you teach them not to just start watching porn, they turn into one of those kids that is on their phone all the time and then transitions into an adult like that too.
you realize most kids will still find a way, even if you tell them not to ? its better to actually educate them. which is the point of parenting; not just to restrict what they are allowed to do.
Its difficult to point number because context, but 13 y/o at leat
If someone’s too dangerous to own a gun they should be institutionalized until they’re no longer a danger. Just taking guns away from them won’t prevent them from being a problem.
Define “too dangerous to own a gun”
Like porn, I know it when I see it.
Tough to legislate, no?
Not really, the tough part is finding people I’d trust to write, enforce, and interpret the legislation.
Anything that would currently mean a person loses their right to gun ownership. A felony, red flag, whatever. I’m not sure I agree with all of them but the logic of the situation dictates that if a person is so dangerous that they will kill people then that needs to be corrected. Just taking a gun away won’t prevent them from doing harm if they want to.
It’s hard to argue that guns don’t make the proverbial bad guy more efficient at killing. If guns weren’t the most effective tool for killing someone, cops would carry cheaper alternatives like billy clubs, and wars would still be fought with swords and bows.
That’s not the point.
Of course, they do carry billy clubs and blunt instruments are quite capable of killing people too. Sure mass shootings would be harder (assuming we could do one single thing about the six hundred million guns out there already, which, good luck) but single brutal murders w/o guns are also a problem and typically target women, lgbt, and disabled people.
And homeless people
Yes thank you I forgot to include them, but that’s true.
The vast majority of people whining about the current political landscape have done absolutely nothing IRL to remedy this (tangibly supporting good candidates, running for office themselves, etc.)
supporting good candidates
Oh yes! Good candidates!.. Who are those, again?
Case in point
Tears of the Kingdom is a terrible game, it’s a mod of BOTW but with more ways to skip the exploration so you don’t get to memorize the map like in Elden Ring or Fallout.
I wouldn’t say terrible but mid possibly. It just took something that already worked well and added a little extra to it.
If “thing2: the sequel” attaches a something kinda neato to the revolutionary, gaming landscape changing “thing1:the thingining” that doesn’t mean thing2 is really better than something that significantly moved the bar.
This is why Fallout 3 is better than Fallout New Vegas and I will fight you all over it.
Fallout New Vegas has better writing than 3
It’s definitely a glorified DLC that was stretched into a whole game. The new things are mostly good but 80% is just exactly the same.
I’m not sure I exactly agree. I feel like it would be a better game than botw if I hadn’t already played botw. Still suffered from most of the same problems.
Also the combat is so bad it encouraged you to avoid it whenever possible.
Hot sauces should be required by law to list their Scoville range (SHU) on their packaging.
100% agree. I want to know whether I’m increasing, decreasing, or maintaining my heat threshold.
Fuckin facts, yo, I’m tired of searching up the sauce to try to get a gauge of wherever the fuck the sauce actually is, as opposed to its marketing wank wanting to convince me I’m chowing down on neutron star, despite it really being around room temp unflavored jello.
Ooh… capsaicin-powered hot take!
I don’t know if this is a hot take, but I think people need to stop basing their lives off of celebrities/influencers. We equate wealth with some hidden knowledge, when they’re just people. Sometimes really fucking stupid people who happen to have a profitable talent. Next time some tries to sell you something or teach you something, ask yourself if this person is even an authority/knowledgeable on what they’re talking about. I’ve gotten in the habit of mentally going “and you are?” when I get new information. Sometimes you find our that person is a leader in their field. Sometimes it’s just some terminally online teenager.
Hotter Take: I think black people put too much stock in celebrities and what they’ll do for the black community. You don’t get freakishly wealthy being a sweetheart. Jay Z is not going to save us. And our blind loyalty has us supporting subpar performances and people because we “have to support” and it keeps fucking us over. No, I’m not supporting this business just because it’s black owned if the service/quality sucks (especially since black owned goods tend to be more expensive).
Realists are just pessimists.
You should be an optimist even if you are faking it. To lift others up.
Mate, I’m barely lifting myself up certain days, can I get a break from being responsible for others’ self-development, dunno, at least half the days?
You’re not responsible for their self development. This is a morale thing.
Trust me it’s easier to pick yourself up for the whole team than it is for just yourself.
Maybe next time you ride the bus, imagine that you’re a background character in someone else’s struggle, and how you hold yourself will be absorbed by their subconscious. Maybe just by holding yourself the right way, you can make everyone on the bus just slightly more ready for the day.
Who is stopping you from taking a break? My hot take is just a general recommendation, especially for people you love.
Real life and responsibilities stop me, my man. Also mental health management. But thanks for asking.
Optimists are delusional
- I like useful delusions.
- If you are optimistic for others you ancourage them to do stuf. Doing some stuff that may not work is 100000% better than watching Netflix/TV. Especially in current nihilistic social climate.
- Pessimist and optimist are both right (not my quote)
- Example: Pessimist: I will not get this job -> So I will not even apply -> 0% chance of getting a job -> 100% correct Optimist: I will get this job -> I apply and prepare -> 20% chance of getting this job -> 20% correct But who cares if you are correct. What matters is taking a chance. This comes way more useful if you are optimistic every day. So you apply for a job whenever there is a chance. And if you apply for 10 jobs from initial 20% you get 89% chance to get a good job.
Being naive is not the same as being optimistic.
- Useful to who?
- I can tell you that overly optimistic people annoy me to no end, and even tend to have the complete opposite effect on me. Cheerleading, thoughts and prayers BS, rather than acknowledging the suckage that’s happening so we can act on it, doesn’t help me at all.
- Debatable
- One can perfectly be realistic about its chances at an interview/job and apply and perform well at it and get it regardless…
You seem to be equating realism with pessimism and immobilism, while equating optimism and action. Why?
- Optimistic person. And if saying “this idea might just work” encourages people you love to try things, then it also helps people you love.
- We could debate on what “overly” means. If you believe you will win the lottery this is just stupid and naive, but if you believe you can start a profitable restaurant this is not overly optimistic. Still you must not be stupid when trying.
- This is debatable. This statement is very broad.
- Correct if you are realistic and not pessimistic. My hot take should be formed: “People who claim are realists are most often just pessimists, who will pass all ideas as bad”. Actually to continue from here we should exactly define all the words we are using. And in this case it would not be a hot take anymore. Also I believe to decide to try and take interview you must feel optimistic about it instead of pessimistic.
My hot take is targeting “realists” who say: “Your idea is bad. Do not pursue it. I am just being realistic.” Even though their idea has maybe small but fair chance of succeeding. This is just discouragement - which is more often seen in pessimists.
Actually at this point I do not even know enough about words and definitions to continue.
I think we should actively try to encourage each other to act, also by believing in others ideas (still do not believe in winning the lottery).
I can definitely agree with this last formulation. But I don’t agree that I need an optimistic outlook into something to do said thing.
Optimists are aspirational. The placebo effect is real, and pessimists use it counterproductively.
The destruction of the library of Alexandria was a win.
How so?
Its legacy as this place potentially and magically fulfilling the hopes of having the answers to one’s questions far exceeds reasonability, especially given the ordinariness of its circumstances/contents, and combine that with the fact that what they were known for is performing human experimentation on live prisoners, all without the ability to understand these experiments enough to start forming a unified concept of medicine around it, since this is Ancient Greece/Egypt we’re talking about.
Pepper Mills are overrated.
Pepper itself is overrated. At least the black one.
Wait, what are pepper mills
The grinder for pepper corns. It gives you more flavor than ground pepper.
You take that back
It’s a hot take! Wouldn’t be good if it weren’t inflammatory.
Gun laws are ineffective. There is zero correlation between gun deaths and strictness of gun laws. Despite limits and bans of short barreled rifles, “assault weapons”, machine guns, etc, gun deaths have continually increased.
Gun bans are only effective where there already isn’t violence, at which point it’s redundant.
I believe the culprits behind widespread American violence are high rates of youth delinquency and gang related criminal activity.
The culprits are an extremely broken social safety net, crumbling education infrastructure and institutional racism.
If we’re talking about Lemmy rather than wider society then;
Inb4; I’m broadly in support of trans people and trans rights/equality but I think there are three small snagging issues
That people who identify as a women but who went through puberty as a male shouldn’t be competing in women’s sports. I think it’s a basic issue of fairness and that it ultimately disincentives people born female from entering a career in sports competitions.
That there is a serious debate to be had about trans people in women’s changing rooms. I know it is a very nuanced and sensitive topic and I don’t pretend that I have the answer, but I don’t think it is as simple as “I identify as X so I’ll use X changing room”. I’d like to make it clear that I don’t think this is a “sneaky perv” issue but rather a debate about spaces that should possibly be reserved for people born as female.
That no permanent changes should be made to the bodies of children. If you’re not old enough to get a tattoo, piercing, drink, smoke etc. Then you’re not old enough to make an extremely important decision that will effect you for the rest of your life.
They told us for so long gender isn’t sex, and then somehow it was, as far as this sports issue
Because we can debate all-day about what is a man or a women or non-binary and gender roles etc. But I would say debating what is a male or female is much easier and simply comes down to genetics.
Edit: imagine getting down voted for saying XX chromosomes are female and XY is male haha, I guess we’re just ignoring the science of genetics now
Nah I think it’s because your reply indicates you missed the point.
Possibly, or maybe your comment wasn’t well written enough.
Yes, it does require you think about it a little bit
I think all sports aren’t equal in this. The rules for MMA would surely be different than the rules for curling or chess. The people who control sports organizations usually have a life dedicated to their sport, and are in a much better place to make a call about it than congress or randos on the internet. This matter should be handled by them. The fact that anyone without skin in the game cares about this at all is a losing battle.
If sex doesn’t matter in curling or chess, then why are there different competitions for men and women in curling and why do women get their own titles in chess?
I do understand the sentiment of what you’re saying, but it’s not the reality we live in.
Brain like squirrels, duh.
That’s absolutely not what I’m saying and I don’t appreciate the insinuation.
Squirrel spotted
I can’t speak to curling, but in chess the womens’ leagues are there to get women involved. There are no biological advantages at play. This is a 2000 year old game they were excluded from playing until 100 years ago. So someone could put forth a good argument that it’s more about gender than physical sex.
There’s actually a big different in mens and women’s IQ distribution. Men are all over the map, from extremely dumb to extremely smart, but women tend to statistically cluster in the middle with comparatively few outliers. Way less mentally deficient, very few Bobby Fischers.
There are very few women chess players at the top level of the game. The reasons for this are debatable, it could simply be that women are less interested in chess or that women are put off by a male dominated “sport”, but I’ve also heard that men are much more likely to have a specific type of autism that makes them especially suited to doing well at chess.
I’m absolutely open minded to the idea that women can become top level chess players and that women’s titles could be made redundant, but I think it’s reasonable to see the evidence of this before we say that it’s an equal playing field for both sexes. I’d suggest that we should see a decent proportion of women in the top one hundred players of the world, or even the top two hundred and fifty.
Given the current ranking of chess players, it’s really hard to say that women have the same chess ability as the men and I absolutely don’t want that to come across as sexism, it’s just factual.
The “people who control sports organizations” only made separate leagues for women because some mens’ feelings get hurt when they lose to women.
There’s no other point to segregating sports by gender, just straight white cis dudes getting bent out of shape by any challenge to their supposed superiority.
I think you mean sports without a physical activity aspect; and even then, sports like chess don’t separate males and females (they offer female-only competitions).
There’s no other point to segregating sports by gender, just straight white cis dudes getting bent out of shape by any challenge to their supposed superiority.
What are you on about? There are two HUGE reasons: safety and fairness:
-
Especially in contact sports, allowing women to play with men is not safe, and would only lead to an environment conducive to women getting injured.
-
There would be zero professional female athletes (excluding sports that only require mental strategy ofc) if there were no separate leagues for women. They wouldn’t perform at even close to the same level as the men, AND would be at increased risk of injury.
I don’t know what fantasy world you live in, but here are biological factors that make it necessary to separate men and women in order to have fair competition. Female athletes would be infinitely worse off if forced to try to compete in a single league shared with men, because they aren’t be able to.
I think you mean sports without a physical activity aspect
No, I do not.
Mens egos are so fragile that women were banned from minor league baseball when Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931.
Figure skating was segregated in 1903 for the same reason, Madge Syers took the silver medal from a man.
The history of womens’ sports is rife with examples like this, most sports started out as co-ed and only stayed that way until women started winning.
Figure skating is a perfect example of a performance sport, there isnt any physicality. Also, I think its absolutely ridiculous to claim that Jackie Mitchell striking out an aging Ruth and Gherig in an exhibition match is a woman ‘starting to win’.
-
Which sports do the women often beat the men in?
Ultra-endurance sports such as marathons (women show a statistical advantage over men above the 150-mile mark), Figure Skating (Madge Syers beat two men for the silver medal in 1902, women were then banned from competing until the sport was gender-segregated in 1906), Baseball (Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931 and was kicked out of the league a month later), Shooting sports (Zhang Shang took the gold in shotgun skeet in 1992, women were’t allowed to compete again until the sport was gender-segregated in 2000, and women average higher scores in the rifle category to this day), etc etc.
Shootings an interesting one. Most people familiar with guns notice women take to shooting accurately more easily and quickly than guys (with rifles, not handguns). I’ve seen this lots personally. My theory involves lower heart rate and lower muscle mass being conducive.
I dont know what they’re on about with Mitchell.
(Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig in 1931 and was kicked out of the league a month later)
This lacks SO much context, it was an EXHIBITION match and she never played in the MLB, she played in the minors. Anyone reading that would assume she struck out two greats in a real game and was banned by the MLB.
There’s a lot of truth to she shooting thing, that should absolutely be co-ed.
However, my point still stands: women and men should be separated if the sport has a physical component to its competition. (i.e. any sort of contact.)
deleted by creator
