Skua @ Skua @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

674

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ahh, that edit hasn't made it across to my instance yet. I see it if I go to yours

Ahh, time to reforge the Auld Alliance then

I agree with you, but to be fair to the Guardian this is an opinion piece by someone who only writes for them once every couple of months

Different people. The one you're replying to didn't make the first comment

You'd damn well hope that the richest person in the world would pay the most tax

I don't think you're necessarily wrong here but this is definitely a funny contrast to the classic "millennials are killing x industry" articles

“Our sires’ age was worse than our grandsires’. We, their sons, are more worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more corrupt.”

• Quintus Horatius Flaccus, writing over 2,000 years ago

I don't know enough about this specific topic to give you more info than Wikipedia could, but:

• The Russian empire goes into WW1 controlling more or less the post-WW2 borders of the Soviet Union. It has Finland and eastern Poland as well, plus a few other diffferences, but you get the idea.
• Russia collapses in the war, several years of civil war ensue, the Bolsheviks win and name the new version of Russia "the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic". It should be noted that the civil war was not at all just a "rebels vs government" deal, the list of different factions is utterly ludicrous. There was an enormous heap of different groups in the former empire and basically every European country was backing at least one of them.
• The RSFSR does not control all of the former Russian empire, only most of it. Several parts did their own thing during the civil war and are currently independent, often fighting their own ongoing civil wars. The RSFSR begins a bunch of wars to try to regain all of the former territory, losing some and winning others.
• The RSFSR regularly backs allied factions in the various national struggles, such as backing the Bolshevik-aligned Ukrainian Socialist Republic against the also-socialist but German-backed Ukrainian People's Republic, the anarchist Makhnovshchina movement, and the also-German-backed but not-socialist Ukrainian State.
• In the cases that the Bolshevik-allied factions won, you now have a bunch of Bolshevik-aligned states outside of the RSFSR.
• Delegates from the Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Transcaucasian soviet republics (Transcaucasia is today Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) get together at the end of 1922 for the First All-Union Congress of Soviets and agree to make a sort of country-of-countries. Something a bit like the EU, but communist and with more power centralised in the new government. This new thing is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Nominally all four "union republics" are equal, although Russia remains enormously more powerful in practice than the others.
• One of the early principles of the Bolsheviks was equal rights for the various nationalities in the new state that they envisioned. To this end, they had a Commissar for Nationalities even before the revolution, a position whose job it was to make sure the nationalities got represented. This position was held by none other than Joseph Stalin.
• Over the next twentyish years, a number of regions in the four SSRs are broken off into new SSRs for different nationalities - Turkmen, Tajik, Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, and more out of Russia, Trancaucasia gets split into Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia etc. Several conquered countries like the Baltic states also become union republics. I have no idea what logic was used when deciding which ones got to be their own republics and which just got to be autonomous parts of the RSFSR. A policy called korenizatsiya is implemented, under which people are meant to be able to run their lives in their own languages.
• The Kazakh and Kyrgyz SSRs stand out because they were autonomous regions of the RSFSR for quite a while before becoming their own SSRs. Their Central Asian neighbours in the Tajik, Turkmen, and Uzbek SSRs became union republics pretty quick, and others like the Bashkirs and Tatars stayed part of the RSFSR until the Soviet Union collapsed. It was only really those two that were somewhere in the middle.

The entire countries of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were autonomous republics within the Russian SFSR for the first 16 years

a small sliver of Ukraine

"Oh poor little Putin only wants to steal the entire land area of Greece and the homes of eleven million people"

which voted to secede from Ukraine,

Ahh yes I too take referenda run by occupying militaries very seriously

Whether a Hitler comparison is valid or not, your take here fucking sucks

That's a yes from Linde then

Either patatas bravas or roasted. Or just roasted potatoes with bravas sauce. But to be honest I'll be happy with most forms of potato. What a stellar vegetable

nij.ojp.gov/…/five-things-about-deterrence

Are you sure this is the link you were looking for? It literally has a header saying "There is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals."

Capital punishment literally has irreversible consequences, which means we need laws to be upheld.

This is no less true without capital punishment. We shouldn't and don't stop worrying about wrongful convictions for other punishments.

That is the ultimate problem we need to go chase, not capital punishment.

One of the two is actually possible to solve immediately and basically for free. If you get rid of the death penalty then there is nothing taken away from any other effort to improve the justice system and ongoing miscarriages of justice become less severe. Do you think that everyone gave up worrying about miscarriages of justice in the over 100 countries that don't have the death penalty?

There are also other points against the death penalty even if you assume it is being used only in a justice system that makes literally no mistakes. How do you know who can and can't be rehabilitated? Who carries out the executions, and what are the effects on them? Do you actually want the state to hold the power of death over its own citizens?

Maybe re-read my initial comment stating that I do not believe what Saudi is doing is correct either. A differing opinion =/= implicit agreement with a regime. Wtf?

I read it just fine. You said you're not defending the Saudi royal family. That doesn't mean that you're not rejecting criticism of the system. And if you are trying to say that, it is really odd to have started the comment by dimissing the whole article with "And?"

So that’s it? Society stops trying? What sort of asinine view is that? Fear of failure should not impede progress. This also applies to laws, regulations, legal frameworks etc.

No? How the hell did you get to that? Society should recognise that it cannot do these things perfectly and act with that in mind, like by not using something so permanent as execution as a punishment.

If we aren’t subsidizing prisons, we can afford it.

"We can afford it" is a much weaker position than "it will save money over the alternative", because it permits execution being more expensive. If execution if more expensive - and in the US, it is - then you can put more money towards rehab by not doing it.

Says you. Go ask the parents of the kids that died in Uvalde massacre on what they want done with the murderer.

I'm literally asking you for data to support your point. I'm not sure how the parents of the kids at Uvalde would have a particular opinion on what they want done with the murderer considering that he was shot dead at the scene though.

Accountability of our own laws, enforcement and the justice system… it’s thing you know.

Are you suggesting that it isn't a thing in countries that don't have the death penalty? I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

In terms of proof of ineffectiveness, can you point me to some research?

From "Deterrence and the Death Penalty" by Daniel S. Nagin, John V. Pepper, and others:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment.

What I’m saying is that the chances of wrongful conviction shouldn’t arise. Ever.

Right, well in reality they do. Everywhere. And it should be pointed out, your initial comment was that you don't see a problem with Saudi Arabia executing people in the present; do you think that Saudi Arabia has this perfect justice system already?

We’ve solved it for space travel, airlines, medicine and countless other fields with implications far beyond what we can cover here. All it takes is collective willingness.

You know people still die from all three of those fields all the goddamn time, right? Even in spaceflight, the one with by far the fewest operations in which something might happen, we're fewer than ten years out from the VSS Enterprise crash that killed Michael Alsbury

Purported benefits in order:

• 1. In the real world, executing someone costs more than life imprisonment due to the costs of investigation and appeals. And it's still not enough to prevent errors.
• 1. See research above
• 1. That's literally just revenge. Do you have any data showing that execution is actually good for the mental health of the families of crimes that, in your opinion, deserve the death penalty?
• 1. The law values human life by... ending it?

I picked up Tunic after wanting it for quite some time. I'm enjoying it a great deal. I was sure that it couldn't possibly be that much like Dark Souls when it has that art style but, uhh, no, turns out it's the opening is basically exactly Dark Souls right down to being told to go ring two mysterious magic bells in opposite directions from where you currently are

As a fellow scared-of-the-ocean-ist, I actually feel like it kinda adds to Subnautica. The game is meant to have some horror. We just get a bit extra

The point is that you can't remediate a wrongful conviction if the person that was wrongfully convicted is dead. It's awful to wrongfully imprison someone, but if you do then at least you can let them out.

If you've got any ideas on how to make a perfect justice system that makes no mistakes, please do share. Nobody else has ever managed it, and not for a lack of trying.

Even if you do manage to solve this unsolvable problem, what's the benefit to executing people? Like I said, there's no proof that it's an actual effective deterrent. There isn't an elevated rate of heinous crimes in places that don't have the death penalty.

Because you will wrongly execute people. It is not a matter of if, but of when and how often. There is no standard of proof good enough to be perfect. And the more effort you put in to try to be sure, the more expensive it is, so it winds up not even being cheaper.

There's not even any actual evidence that it's an effective deterrent. People don't do things like that with the expectation of being caught.

It's good! It depends on what you liked about 2 though, since they did shift a lot of the points of focus for 3. I personally like that they leaned into the roleplaying aspect of it. Managing a large realm is now a much more active task than it was in 2. It's a shame that stuff like nomads and merchant republics aren't playable yet, but I do think that the feudal gameplay is substantially better.

If cats are any sin, it is pride without a doubt. Hell a specific kind of big cat is already called a pride when they're in a group