BarrelAgedBoredom @ BarrelAgedBoredom @lemm.ee

Posts

7

Comments

1,146

Joined

2 yr. ago

The fact that you feel it's appropriate to compare this to gas chambers highlights how willfully ignorant you are. Nitrogen isn't zyklon B or cyanide and sulphuric acid. 78% of the air you breathe is nitrogen for fucks sake. The mechanisms at play are nothing like each other. They're not even on the same planet.

It's an incredibly simple procedure with essentially zero room for fuck ups. Can you put a mask on and turn a knob? Congrats, youve done it! We know how hypoxia presents in people that aren't being actively strangled. You get light headed, giddy, confused, and then you pass out. All within a minute. It's quick, potentially euphoric and you'll be out before your oxygen starved brain knows what's going on.

If we're going to execute people, which we obviously shouldn't, them it should be as quick and painless as possible. I know you don't give a shit about that since you've stated twice that executions should be painful and cause suffering because "that's the point", but pull your head out of your ass. Stop getting off on the idea of painful executions and leave room for people who know what the fuck they're talking about to pave the way forward.

Your individual opinion doesn't matter, but if enough people are fooled into believing the same braindead garbage you're spewing then the cruel and innefective methods we're currently using will stay in use for the foreseeable future. Keep your dog shit opinions to yourself so it doesn't spread

Ok. So I was right. Executions should be painful and cause suffering because that's the entire point. Quick, simpler, more effective,.more humane methods shouldn't be utilized because it is antithetical to executions. Inert gas asphyxiation has been tested and it is a popular method of assisted suicide. People use it often with the intention of dying. To say it hasn't been tested on people who know they are going to die is just flat out bullshit. Philip Nitschke a former physician and founder of Exit International developed the exit bag with the specific intent of providing a peaceful way for people to kill themselves, assisted or not. He also invented the sarco pod for these exact reasons, using nitrogen as the preferred inert gas. Inert gas works well. Full stop.

It would also be very easy to ensure people are dead before removing them from the pod. It's called an ecg. Hell, even a pulse oximeter that displays heart rate (which is virtually all of them and can be obtained for a few bucks from a drug store) would work in a pinch. Monitor their heart rate, once asystole presents, wait a few minutes before removing the gas. It is exceptionally more simple to confirm death with inert gas than by other methods such as lethal injection, which is the most common nowadays. Do you know how easy it is to fuck up lethal injection?

So people on death row should suffer from more cruel methods? They should run the risk of botched executions from people that received no training? Nitrogen is safe and effective. Put a mask on, open the tank. That's it. Do we need to complicate the process? Would that make it better in your eyes? If we're going to execute people (which we fucking shouldn't) why do we have to make it worse?

You're calling me, an anarchist, a tankie? Do you even know what that word means? I know you read the part of my comment where I said I was an anarchist because you quoted it.

The combination of capitalism and socialism is called democratic socialism. It doesn't work long term. The Nordic model is essentially democratic socialism put to practice and it's gone well for the people in Nordic countries. They still suffer from capital strikes and other problems that are only going to get worse with time. These countries still rely on exploitation of people in the global south. Nestle is a swedish company with a terrible past. They have literally killed babies, use slave labor, and destroy ecosystems to extract wealth from poor countries. Spotify is another swedish company with a problematic track record. They're not alone either. H&M, IKEA and Nokia have all had sketchy track records. Why do Nordic companies have so many things wrong with them if they're companies founded in the "ideal" countries? Could it be because of inherent problems in capitalism? Nah! The system just needs tinkering, it'll all work out don't you worry!

I'll concede, the social problems in these countries are much smaller than, say, the US. They have managed to increase the quality of life of their polity. It's not perfect but it's better than what we have and it will continue to be that way for a little while longer until capital is able to erode those collective benefits further to increase their bottom line. Which they have done and will continue to do. See Canada and the UK for an idea of what the nordic countries will eventually devolve into and then have a look at the US for something closer to the end goal.

That's hilarious because that exactly what capitalists say about capitalism

Capitalists are right.Capitalists have freedom, autonomy, and self determination. Problem is, most of us aren't capitalists and we don't have access to the material resources wealth gives you access to. And it has to be that way. There are very few that the above terms apply to and the overwhelming majority of us are excluded from the benefits of capitalism. "Work or starve" is the status quo for a reason.

All of this isn't even getting into the whole "infinite growth is impossible and it's killing the planet" thing. Capitalism will literally be the death of us and no amount of reforms are going to stop it. Capitalism is predicated on the assumption that infinite growth is possible and necessary. There are so many destructive and inhumane aspects to the ideology that at some point, it will become obvious that it can't be fixed. For a long time feudalism seemed like a perfectly good system that should be upheld. Sure there were problems, but it just needed to be tweaked. Do you know how that ended? Revolution.

Do you have anything substantive to say about the benefits of capitalism and democratic socialism or are you determined to have your head so far up your ass that polite criticism of the status quo makes you feel personally attacked? I didn't miss anything about your comment and if you knew a bit more about the things you're talking about you would see that. Instead of being a reactive anus for no good reason, why don't you try to understand what I'm saying? It's clear that you don't. I'd be happy to leave some resources for you to read up a little if you're interested in understanding what you're defending and what you're claiming to be against. Books, videos, articles, podcasts, just name your preferred method of media consumption and I'll leave something for you

Couple the shaved ass with a diet consisting exclusively of beans, cabbage, broccoli, and soft cheeses and baby you got a category 5 ass-tastrophy brewing

The fact that the poor still exist in your ideal "fair" society indicates that a capitalist system still relies on exploitation. How do you make "work or starve" disappear while still being capitalist?

Communism is a stateless, moneyless society. It's a utopian marker for people in the present day. It's not a fixed ideology in and of itself. The Spanish Anarchists of the CNT-FAI and the USSR have very little in common but both aspired to implement communism, at least on paper. I have my criticisms but they're not relevant.

You would be correct in saying that people have an innate desire to labor and improve their lives. Capitalism forces you to (attempt to) improve your life and shape the world through competition with your peers. If you're disadvantaged in some way, fuck you. Work harder or die in the streets. Social programs and welfare are antithetical to capitalism. It doesn't independently generate profit and thus is often ignored or slowly eroded over time when it does manage to manifest. Socialism/ socialist ideologies (worker ownership of the means of production) enables people to improve their life and shape the world through cooperation. It seeks to ensure everyone is able to live a dignified life and contribute according to their ability. Humans are capable of both competiton and cooperation and capitalism builds a very one sided society that demands competition. It's a terrible way to live and alienates people from each other.

Socialism (in my perspective as an anarchist) seeks to allow people to live their lives with the maximal amount of freedom, self determination, and autonomy possible. Whether that includes markets (which I'm assuming is what you mean by capitalism, since that's what most people who defend capitalism think it is), planned economies, gift economies, library economies or something completely different, is a better system than capitalism on a foundational level

Thank you for your hard work!

YUH!

The Hank Hill handshake method of voting

Had no idea lemm.ee was having issues. Thought I was shadowbanned or something haha

Bonk

Do I look like I know hwat a replicator is??? I just want a gaht dang hot dog!

Forgot what the thread was originally about lol, my bad. I skimmed the article, I'm working and haven't given it a proper read yet. I see why you were saying all that now, that's on me and I apologize.

To say they're the same is incorrect as they are different compounds. But if we're judging them on their effects on the mind and body, taken the same way and in the same doses; they illicit a nearly identical response. If you accidentally took a meth pill instead of Adderall, it's likely you would only notice minor differences if you noticed anything

And what part of that mentioned anything about sourcing meth from the streets? As far as my intentions are concerned, I was speaking strictly pure, prescribed methamphetamine, taken as prescribed. That could've been inferred from context since the comment I was replying to was about how methamphetamine is sometimes prescribed for ADHD. The conversation wasn't about street drugs and until you commented, no one brought it up

Im not telling people to buy crank from some dude down the street instead of going to the pharmacy for their Adderall. You're just putting words in my mouth and getting mad at them.

However, I was misremembering a study I read a few years ago. Outside of in vitro and rat studies, I couldn't find anything measuring the pharmacological effects of Adderall and meth. I should've said behavioural and physiological instead. It was intranasal instead of oral as well, for what that's worth. The behavioral effects are essentially identical and there are very minor differences in effects on heart rate and blood pressure. I will be correcting my comment after I reply to you.

Turns out I was misremembering a study I read a few years back. It was intranasal, not oral. They're still incredibly similar in their effects at the same dose. Here's the study. And a vice article about the study with commentary from the doctor who conducted it.

Not to mention the pharmacological effects of methamphetamine are indistinguishable from Adderall when taken orally in similar doses

E: I was misremembering this study. It was measuring the physiological and behavioral effects of insufflated amphetamines, not oral. Here's a vice article with additional info from the doctor who conducted the study

Litigation only matters if the other side wants to play by the rules. They don't, so why should everyone else? Take it to the streets

If you have targeted ads turned off they'll serve you all sorts of shit. I'd get the weirdest ads for stuff I definitely hadn't looked up, shown an interest in, etc before I started using ad blockers

Build some god damn trains, subways, and bus routes with the military money. Bing bang boom we're an actual "first world" country now