aelwero @ aelwero @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

322

Joined

2 yr. ago

I agree with that.

The specific ban in question on this particular post isn't a general matter though... it's targeting minorities...

That kinda makes it a moot point in my opinion on wether or not prohibition is appropriate in general, because regardless of where you fall on the matter of bans or liberties, the specificity of the intended targets is wildly inappropriate, because it's racist/homophobic, so I kinda disregarded the last point they made entirely :)

It's racist to specifically target a type favored by minorities if your intent is to target minorities, and the stated intent is specifically to target minorities with a ban... ironically, to protect them from being discriminated against by their chosen type of cigarettes.

They published that... they very publicly are saying that they're going to protect these minorities by directly targeting them with a ban. It's not me saying it's a racist/homophobic ban, it's the published premise itself. The entire basis of the ban is published as being to keep cigarettes from affecting blacks, browns, and LGBTQ+ people by eliminating their preferred type.

How on earth are there people who don't understand this? Are you so tied to the politics that you cannot or will not see this objectively? It's blatant.

This apparently is an objectionable point to bring up... not sure if your downvotes are the "all or nothing" aspect, or the spotlighting of the blatant racist aspect, but it seems people don't want to see this at face value :/

I'm with you though. The selective targeting is wrong. Equal ban or no ban is the right position to take IMHO.

Also my opinion, and the outcome of prohibition would suggest that society at large generally believes this as well.

...with an obvious exception for minorities...

Which was my point. Apparently the politics of it, and decades of anti tobacco propaganda (and I dont intend the normally negative connotation the word has, it just is what it is) have made this acceptable somehow... for an obviously racial/homophobic exception to just be openly declared and apparently acceptable... it's kinda weird to me.

"According to the American Lung Association, the use of menthol cigarettes is highest among Black, brown and LGBTQ+ communities. Medical groups like the American Lung Association have long advocated for menthol cigarettes to be banned because they can make it easier to start smoking and disproportionately affect minority communities."

Gonna save the minorities from the opression of racism and homophobia by specifically targeting them with a ban.

I've never really understood references to "the left eating itself" until I hit that paragraph. The absolute irony of the anti racist/homophobe sentiment being so overtly racist/homophobic kinda made the light bulb come on.

This adverse thing is adverse, so in order to reduce adversity among minorities, we'll target the specific option they tend towards... to reduce discrimination against them, by discriminating their specific choice. Discriminating against them... to reduce discrimination...

And then you publish that shit? That's kinda fucked IMHO.

How about we create a government bureau... like a regulatory agency that specifically deals with firearms. To save money, maybe they could deal with a couple other things too, something not too overwhelming though you know, so they could mostly focus on firearms... maybe like alcohol and tobacco, since the FDA and USDA kinda already covers lot of the policy and licensure of those things anyway... we could call it the bureau of Firearms, Tobacco, and Alcohol, or FTA for short...

I mean... I'm just saying...

I knew four soldiers discharged under DADT... all of them basically self initiated that process (and one of them was definitely not actually gay), and all were classed as honorable and RE2 (meaning they can't come back, but that's appealable with VA). They just wanted to go home, and it was always a fairly amiable thing for everyone involved.

An "other" discharge for that is kind of a fucked up command decision IMHO... smacks of a command team resenting a Soldier wanting out. I could sort of see it in terms of manning shortfalls, but why would you want to keep a Soldier who doesn't want to be a Soldier? They're usually a pita if you force them to stay. (And of course this could be contributablevyo homophobic command teams, but I never personally knew any of that sort).

There were far more instances of Soldiers everyone knew were homosexual and nobody ever said a word. We didn't ask, they didn't tell, and nobody really cared. I didn't like DADT, but it was viable because Soldiers made it work :)

"Other" discharges should definitely be appealed and fixed imho

Depends...

In the case of West point, the criteria for preferential admissions is going to be based on maintaining the number of officers who are black at 15% or so (to align military officer demographics with the general population). By and large there won't be any actual action, they aren't going to actively go looking for black people to enroll to add numbers. If there is an occasion where candidates are competing for seats, they will adjust preference to pursue their demographic targets. The standards won't get lowered, it's just a bias in competition among those who otherwise qualify.

In some cases, it ends up being a little different. It won't be preference among similarly qualified people, it will be an active pursuit of getting a specific number of black people into seats, sometimes with no regard at all for other qualifications. The qualification for a seat becomes skin color. Essentially, the standard becomes inherently racist.

I don't know exactly how affirmative action was implemented at Harvard or West point, but there's a very real chance that West point will fare better in a lawsuit, because the merits of affirmative action aren't fixed, it depends on how it's implemented. It can be good, it can be racist. If a white guy needs a bunch of qualifications and a black guy just needs to show up with his melanin, that's not cricket, but if both meet the qualifications (to a roughly equivalent degree) and you preference for a target demographic outcome (that roughly mirrors population demographics), thats completely sound and entirely laudable.

The devil's in the details, as with most things. It's not a black and white issue, despite the obvious :)

They want to take a picture of your face to analyse it to determine approximate age to access certain content and claim that this is minimally invasive... do I understand that correctly?

And the objection is first amendment?

Where do I order one of those tinfoil hats from?

They fuck you at the drive-thru, okay? They fuck you at the drive-thru! They know you're gonna be miles away before you find out you got fucked! They know you're not gonna turn around and go back, they don't care. So who gets fucked? Ol' Leo Getz! Okay, sure!

I bet this doesn't indicate that the people in question like trump, or even that they're conservative. It almost definitely doesn't indicate they've become the white supremacists that people claim all republican voters to be...

I bet it simply indicates that people will tolerate a trump if it means getting Biden out.

Got nothing to do with policy either I'd bet, dudes just embarrassing is all. We got sleepy incoherent just escaped from the old folks home guy on TV representing the US, and it's fucking embarrassing...

I will absolutely positively never vote for trump, or desantis, or Abbott, or any of that ilk, but I didn't and won't vote for Biden either... I voted JoJo, and I'll do it again :)

I'm usually good for an independent party vote ;)

I wouldn't vote for this dude in a POTUS run (he was, in actual fact, the reason for my only democrat POTUS vote so far...), as he doesn't quite fall into the centrist zone for me personally, but I do respect the fact that he's stayed far closer to center than most Republicans, and I likewise respect that he can actually recognize that DC has turned into an old folks activity center and is willing to set an example by bowing out of it.

Godspeed bud. Enjoy the fishing, and I hope you end up hitting it on the nose with the trump fever wearing off :)

Don't know if it can be enforced?

How about don't know if it's legal to be on the books in the first place? You can't restrict interstate travel of a citizen... how is this not a very simple matter of challenging this as simply unconstitutional based on freedom of movement?

The reality of the conversation is actually worse than the headline... their whole point was that feminism is trying to do away with masculinity and ultimately the concept of family and evolve humanity into something else (with "part machine" being a weird spit balling attempt at not actually saying that all humans should become female, basically, because between them they had the one brain cell required to understand why that's an absurd notion)

Stupid title is clickbait/propagandized, for no apparent reason... you don't gotta church up the stupidity on that conversation at all...

Can't nuke a terrorist without killing a bunch of regular average joe type people... ends don't justify the means on that one.

I think we did ok. Iraq was an excuse, but the ends on that one was a net positive. Maybe not worth the cost, but not a huge step backwards that a nuke would have been.

I think the most important thing to remember is us, the public... we all (ALL... it's disingenuous to deny in hindsight, highest approval rating ever... it was all of us), demanded a head on a plate, and the only head that would have been more appropriate than saddams to serve up would have been a North Korean one... and that just wasn't in the cards... we were given exactly what we ordered, and bitching about the order because you changed your mind after ordering it is Karen as fuck...

Both parties love inventing new and fun ways to take potshots at the opposition, while completely ignoring the fact that every new cannon they build invariably gets turned 180° and aimed squarely at heir own faces.

I'd normally call that a bad thing, but a trump cannon aimed at republican faces is amusing to me...

I'm still rocking a $15 kato hammer clone I bought in 2014... "Box mod" made me laugh a little, I remember the MVP being the new hotness because it wasn't round :)

My first vape ever was a joye e-roll. I would absolutely not have switched over as easily as I did if the two options were convenient little cigarettes or a big honking 18650 mod. E-roll wasn't exactly a disposable, but that tiny little form factor was a big deal... a really big deal... it's what allowed me to switch.

Which is all to say that I have zero interest in disposables, same way I have zero interest in training wheels on a bicycle, but they aren't entirely without value.

We obviously know there are adverse long term effects, because you know, we're making the shit illegal all over the place...

Long term effects are a lack of yellow shit all over all your stuff and losses in tobacco tax and settlement revenue...

Went from "vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking" to "ban it, think of the children" in only 5 years...

How much did the reversal cost Phillip Morris and RJR, do you suppose?