It all sounds believable. It’s just a new way of thinking about it. Which part do you find strange?

Well the most common and effective way of destroying local cultures, is to force the people to speak the common language.

For example in France, the UK, and many other places, there used to be many local regions, with their own languages and strong local cultures and loyalties. The rulers wanted to kill the local cultures, so that the people would have no local identity. This stops disloyalty or independent thinking or independence movements.

They did this by forcing their subjects to speak a common language.

This policy was perfectly effective.

A province speaking its own language can easily maintain its own identity and push for independence. Without its own language this is more difficult, even if it keeps its own customs.

I think I’ve been too vague. So I can elaborate about these policies in the UK or France, if you like. For other territories (Spain, Italy, etc) I believe the same thing happened but I’m not the expert.

Interesting. After getting more familiar with the French system, I am starting to think the market-based system is the best way. Or at least, it’s a good start. The perfect system in probably fully state run. But it’s so difficult for incompetent governments to create. A good market-based system is easy and quick, and works fine, as an interim solution.

I guess it depends what you mean by “progressive” though?

In paper, the democracies in the world are Ireland, Berlin, Switzerland, California. IMO in practice they are also the most progressive.

I’m not sure they’re really the same question. Be careful of making a false equivalence.

Your questions are very loaded. Most people would answer “there shouldn’t be ANY racism at all!”

In that case, if the questions are really equivalent, everyone’s answer to the original question should be “there shouldn’t be any censorship at all” or maybe “there should be complete censorship for everyone”.

But I don’t think that’s the right conclusion. Therefore the questions are not equivalent. This is too simplistic.

Because you’re taking a very technical rhetorical stance, I’ll try to answer the same way.

Racism is a damaging thing. There’s no good side to it.

Censorship is also a damaging thing. But it can sometimes be a necessary evil to prevent worse evils. There is a sweet spot where it prevents more damage than it causes.

Racism is a natural feature that arises in groups of people, but censorship is a political measure. So if there is a damaging amount of racism in lemmy, censorship can be used to reduce it. While there is no underlying racism problem, then censorship causes its harm while producing no benefit.

These things are hard to measure, so censorship is normally a matter of very careful consideration.

If working with live wires, do the whole thing standing on a wooden stool. You must have a thick insulator between you and ground. You will probably touch a live wire at some point, and the size of shock you get depends on how well insulated you are from the ground, walls, and other objects around you.

Don’t bother wrapping wires around you.

If you connect the live to the earth wire, you will blow the fuse, and probably destroy the wires too. Then you’ll have to rip out the plaster to lay new wires.

This is not difficult if you are careful, not tired, and have good common sense.

Wrap the live in electrical tape first. Only unwrap it for the few seconds where you are putting it into its connector. That’s the only step you need to do carefully.

deleted by creator

Good idea. https://lemmy.ml/c/ubi

This is a straw-man argument. Nobody would ever (I hope) try to implement UBI that way. It would be a disaster.

But this is a general problem. Proponents and opponents of any thing, are usually talking about very different versions of the thing. If not, they have incompatible perspectives on the thing. I can explain more about this if you like - you really need to see examples to see why it’s important.

There aren’t really serious doubts about whether UBI would work, or what its effects are on society. But there are many misunderstandings about what UBI is.

I can axplain later about UBI if you like. But for now, what kind of revolution are you thinking of? What is the political goal of the anti-work people?

Are you talking about UBI? Or communism? Or something else?

But after UBI much more charity work will start being done. There will be a critical mass of people who have time and funds to build up their own communities.

I would keep doing the same job, but also some community work.

As someone once told me, “cycling is a warmup excercise”.

Oh got it.

In a lot of the world people are car-dependent. So we must force manufacturers to stop making tyres that wear excessively fast. Which is easy for governments but difficult anyone else.

And reducing car-dependency obviously would be the longer term solution.

A big problem in cities. Is already known to cause serious diseases in humans, and the research is only beginning now. We don’t know anything about the effects on wildlife.

Try it. Run an experiment.

The second one is zoomed in, to make it look worse. Being able to see that there is solid ground on the left is important.

The example I know is where you take a random healthy man. Then you find five people who are waiting for different organ donations. Is it right to kill that man and harvest his organs, to save the five.

I find it a much more insightful example.

Will there be a “debate vegans” type sub? I still have so many questions, but don’t know where to ask.

On the other hand, electrolysis could be a good use of electricity supply peaks. There aren’t many others:

• pumping water up dams and towers
• mining bitcoin
• charging batteries
• anything else?

Very good article though. I learnt a lot.