Ookami38 @ Ookami38 @sh.itjust.works

Posts

3

Comments

1,209

Joined

2 yr. ago

Don't put words in my mouth. You're the one refusing to move past the fact that I chose to refer to your idea of a refund as part of the fine. Get back to me when you make an effort to understand the actual points I'm making. Actually, don't bother, you're not worth my time any longer.

Okay so you take issue with the 10% part. We can talk about that, for sure. I think 10% is low too. But you're attacking me as if I'm thinking it's all well and good they're doing this shit. It's not. We're on the same page philosophically, you just really don't like the specific terminology I'm using, and would rather argue than try to get to a common ground. Take care, bud.

Right. As I said, you can use the past to color your present, but the thing that matters presently is present actions and, to a lesser extent, words. So, judging him based on his actions during presidency, which should show us either his current beliefs or, at least, his willingness to listen to constituents.

During his presidency, he's been... Well, I won't say stellar, but his actions have been more in line with someone who actually wants better, rather than someone who wants to cling to old habits. Again, could he do more, yes. But his record -recently- has been, for a politician, pretty good.

You bring up the RAVE act. That was 20 years ago. 20 of the most eventful years in at least modern history. Do you think someone is incapable of change for 20 years? I know I've changed drastically just in the last 2 or 3 years. I mean, yeah, he's old, but I've seen old people change too. Might not come full revolution, change is slow, but again - any progress is worth acknowledging and celebrating.

Is there something he's done during his presidency that leads you to believe he's still got those same values from prior? We can talk efficacy of some of his planned solutions, and some of his lack of a spine, but I think overall his actions are consistent with his words, in this regard.

See, this is EXACTLY my point. We all get obsessed over the things of the past, and while those can help inform us of the present, they're not actually the present.

Yes, he was a proponent of the RAVE act. That's one of those "don't forget the bads" that I mentioned. We can accept that, and also accept that he seems to have lightened up on that BS in recent times.

No one's perfect, everyone changes their minds about things. You did horrible things in your past too, almost certainly. That's not you, we can accept that, but for politicians it's this unchanging thing - you supported one thing, you will always continue supporting that thing.

Let people grow. Let ideas be brought up, and shot down. Let mistakes be in the past, and start focusing on what's actually happening in the present.

He's had some policies I agree with, that move us towards a less police state level. I admit, I haven't followed him super closely, he's less interesting than things have been lately, but at least the federal decriminalization of marijuana and pardons (I know they were effectively useless, didn't really do anything - we can get into exactly why) show he's at least trying to do what constituents want, which is a far cry more than a lot of other politicians.

Can he, should he, do more? Yeah. But credit where it's due, he seems like he's trying to steer two giant ships - his own past biases, and the United States political climate. Both of those are slow and hard to do, so anything moving in that direction should be celebrated.

One of my go-tos for karaoke.

Remember, though, that people, opinions, and political landscapes can change. Yes, Biden was pretty shit back in the 90s, but it actually feels a little bit like he's trying to move back in the other direction. Don't gotta forget the bad, but also can't forget the (attempts at) good

Who actually cares what you call it? The point is, you remove whatever money they got from being shitty, and then hit them with a fine.

Do you think 10% on top of the "refund" is not enough? I think that's got more teeth than any fines we use today. I can get behind it not being a steep enough penalty, but say that, instead of arguing over "refund" versus "fine" and "earnings" versus "acquisitions" or whatever terminology bugbear you have.

Yes, they earned things. Fraudulently. You're getting up in arms over some terminology that doesn't quite mesh with your preferences. We're clearly on the same wavelength - stop organizations from acquiring (does that keep you happy? Getting? Taking? Whatever fucking word you want) money through illegal or unethical methodology.

You're like the worst part of the left. Up in arms because someone dares to have a "different" opinion from you, when if you actually stopped to understand the words they're saying, you'd realize you're on the same fucking page.

Which then makes whatever business practice is causing damage actually cost the company money. That's the point. If the bottom line is dollars, making it so that illegal or unethical practices CANNOT make you money, because you'll be fined more than the amount you made. Or, if you REALLY want to split hairs, sure, you'll be forced to refund 100%, and then fined 10% on top of that. If that's REALLY the distinction you want to make, go for it. It's the same in the end.

My guy. Reading comprehension. I did not say 10%. I said 10% ON TOP OF ANY EARNINGS.

As in, if a corp earns 1 million, the fine levied would be 1.1 million.

Christ, go back to 2nd grade.

I mean, that's fair. We can talk specifics, just something to make sure the fine has teeth. How we decide to do that is another topic.

Reminder that it's all revenue PLUS 10%. So it effectively makes whatever bullshit money making scheme they want to use, cost money instead.

Exactly. Fines don't work for corporations or the mega wealthy because they don't have teeth. Pegging the fine to the actual income earned from the crime, and ensuring it's no longer more profitable to just pay the fine and continue doing what you're doing, is like, the only way to continue if we want to use fines as a deterrent.

This looks like an example of relative privation. There's no way for us to all agree on what's a "good" cause. There are so many things people fight for, so many wrongs to right. We'll never agree on the one that's the worst, and if that's the only metric we use for problem solving - that we solve the worst problem we can, and only that problem, we'll end up spending our time trying to solve the problem of what problem to solve and never actually do anything.

The reality is that we can work on many things at once. We can push something that will have a decent impact, such as attempting to cut cigarette consumption, while ALSO working on homelessness, famine, fascism, etc.

I'll happily engage with you on why banning cigarettes may not be a good idea, but it's not because we could be better spending our time on other "more important" matters.

Need to design a squirrel yeeter, damn things eat too much.

Fuckin app has cost me so much for a free app...

I mean, yeah, tony stark is an asshole. Bruce Wayne could do more for Gotham than Batman ever could. Elon IS like them - he only wants to do anything good (or anything at all) if it brings a spotlight to them

None of that is relevant. The issue being discussed here isn't one of whether or not it's currently possible to create fake nudes.

The original post being replied to indicated that, since AI, an artist, a photoshopper, whatever, is just creating an imaginary set of genitalia, and they have no ability to know if it's accurate or not, there is no damage being done. That's what people are arguing about.

What was this from? Was it twilight princess? I feel like it was twilight princess but I'm not sure.