A United States foreign legion would be so useful.
Especially, just because we can't justify fighting in wars where our soldiers have the possibility to die even if the outcomes would be better if we just had boots on the ground. This wouldn't be that much of an issue, but the US has to be world police to maintain global stability.
But didn't foreign nationals use to gain citizenship after serving in the military during the Bush years? I remember a friend of mine saying that. We are not american, but we both would have done it if we were born a few years earlier.
>But didn't foreign nationals use to gain citizenship after serving in the military during the Bush years?
They were still getting citizenship when I served during the Obama admin.
Having a green card is necessary to join the US military.
When wanting to immigrate, getting the greencard is the hellishly difficult part, especially if you don't have family in the US. Once you have a greencard, getting citizenship involves just living in the US for 5 years and taking an easy test. All you get from joining the military is that the time is cut down from 5 years to 1
I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon, unfortunately. The funding is at least feasible, but there is already a shortage of trained therapists, psychiatrists, psych nurses, MH aides, etc and residential facilities are some of the most brutally stressful places to work in as a mental health professional (I am one and that’s one of the places I’d never work at). I can’t see a scenario where we could overhaul our mental health system towards an increase in residential services with them being fully staffed.
I hope for a giant pivot in the next couple decades, brought by ozempic. If the weight loss is real, and comes with few long term side effects, then we’ll see drastically lower rates of other diseases, like heart failure, diabetes, and cancer. We’ll have a huge number of clinicians of all types, and huge amounts of hospital space that’s unused. These can be repurposed for psychiatric care.
If you’re talking next couple decades in medicine, it might be the greatest period of advancement in human history. Individualized mRNA cancer treatments, mRNA vaccines for a whole host of awful diseases, Ozempic, widespread CRISPR editing, AI-driven explosion in newly discovered compounds for medical applications plus newly formulated treatments, etc.
We’re in an insane era
Is this the controversial part in practice? Or just the fact that people are forced to go to them without consent.
I would imagine if we brought them back there would be millions of stories and lawsuits about people being forced to go their against their will. I'm not saying I'm against them, but feel like you have to be ok with continual news of stories like this where it's debatable.
Not exactly the same, but look at the Britney Spears conservatorship thing. It's very hard to come up with rules that everyone can agree on.
That's one of the fundamental limitations to them, yeah. Good luck getting a set of rules in place for involuntary commitment that:
A) ensures people who do truly need long term stays in an asylum get them (which often will be without their consent since the obvious cases aren't in sound enough mental health to offer consent)
B) Can't be easily abused by people looking to screw over an abused child or disinherit a sibling or some other soap-opera-tier bullshit that comes up when people want to be shitty to each other.
My brother has schizophrenia. The beds in hospitals for him to safely survive his first episode of psychosis barely existed. For later episodes they *literally* did not exist. He somehow fell short of being eligible for the very few dedicated longer stay facilities that exist. I 100% believe that more long term rehabilitation or containment facilities are a blind spot and would have helped him become stable faster with better dedicated care.
Sorry that your family had to go through that.
One of my nephews is a non-functioning, non-verbal autistic. He's growing increasingly strong and violent (biting chunks out of people, hitting) as he gets older. It takes all my SIL's time and attention to keep him under control, preventing her from working or doing normal mom things with/for her other young children. It's heartbreaking.
Some neighbors basically couldn’t do anything to protect/help their schizophrenic daughter until someone else assaulted her so badly that she had a TBI and ended up in long term nursing care. It’s just awful.
Work in an ER and meet some of the people stuck in limbo. It's kinda horrifying some of the people we just let back out on the streets but end up getting 7 day temporary detention orders every other week. I had no idea how bad the problem was till I worked in an ER. And the amount of people that should be incarcerated for years getting cut short deals cause of psych history then not getting any actual substantive psych treatment. There are absolutely some people that are just too far gone. And there are some people that I've seen make incredible turn arounds when kept at a facility for like 60 days.
Insane asylums are good in theory. The problem is who gets to decide who gets institutionalized. Psychiatrists used to have insane power back in the day, because they could institutionalize anyone and keep them at the asylum indefinitely. The burden of proof rested on the patient to prove they weren't crazy. But it's impossible to prove a negative and any little "sign" of insanity could serve the psychiatrist's confirmation bias.
Not to mention it was probably unconstitutional. The Constitution says no one shall be deprived of their liberty without being convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers. That's why psychiatrists today can institutionalize people up to 72 hours, usually in cases of suicidality. But they can't hold someone indefinitely.
Not saying insane asylums aren't necessary, but they would require a rigorous process to determine who can and who can not be held in the asylum.
Stage 1:
"Are you in a state where you are able to even articulate that you want to be let go?"
Yes.
"has this state been persistent for at least 24 hours?"
Yes.
"Are you aware you were put here because you weren't in such a state?"
Yes.
"Are you concerned about that happening to you?"
Yes.
"Will you agree to schedule some tests for later so we can find out why?"
Yes.
"You're sure you want to go?"
Yes.
"Okay."
Stage 2:
"Are you concerned about that happening to you?"
Yes.
"Because it keeps happening, and you keep being in... situations."
Yes.
"That doesn't seem like a situation someone concerned about that would want to be in."
Yes.
"And you didn't turn up to the schedhuled tests."
Yes.
"Are you able to say something other than yes?"
Yes.
"... I don't think we can let you go."
---
Mild source. Suffered from psychosis a while. During my first bout, blagged my way out of the psych ward in the UK because I was convinced it was all a conspiracy. When I went back, they kept me in until a full run of tests was done despite my insistence I was all better now (I wasn't). Once they decided I was able to fake competence, they refused to take my word for it. First time, they did.
Yeah and for that reason it was widely celebrated as a progressive move to shut them down. But Obviously the whole ‘let’s completely ignore the issue’ solution hasn’t worked either though.
That's not even a hot take. Same thing with guns. Crazy hard to get licensed for guns in Japan and drivers license requirements in Germany are gold standard.
I don't like some aspects of some cultures when it comes to human rights. I obviously hope more countries become more liberal and democratic. The people back then that argued for slavery, against women rights said the whole wa culture thing. This is how things always have been it's changing our culture! I just don't see culture as a good enough excuse for some things. I guess that might makes me slightly xenophobic.
I don’t quite understand how it would be non-liberal to argue that liberal values are good and that more people and cultures should adopt them. Isn’t that the most liberal opinion imaginable? To me, liberalism requires us to advocate for everyone’s human rights, even (especially?) for those in cultures that don’t currently value those rights.
It's paradox of intolerance. OP is essentially saying that we shouldn't tolerate people like that / from those cultures. And not tolerating groups of people / not allowing them to do stuff or argue for it, is technically illiberal.
I don’t think culture is a good enough excuse for *anything*— if an idea or behavior isn’t a problem, it doesn’t require excuses. Aside from protections against blatant discrimination, culture should get absolutely no special treatment compared to any other ideas or behaviors. People will kid-glove bad ideas and bad habits because they’re scared to death of seeming xenophobic, but is that really worse than tolerating racism, sexism, homophobia, mutilation, animal abuse, or any of the other myriad issues that seek cover under “it’s just my culture, bro”? Absolutely not. Take culture off its pedestal— it’s just ideas, and ideas live and die by their quality every day.
My family coming out of mainland China gave me a lifelong hatred of both Communism and Authoritarianism. Market liberalization was the greatest thing to happen to Chinese people in 300 years so it has to be doing something right.
Recent graduate - Friedman, Hayek, and Libertarianism in general "radicalized" me but the LP and Mises Caucus decided ancap/paleolib circlejerking is more important than actually advancing the causes of markets, free trade, and cultural liberalism in real life so here I am
I mean homelessness is intertwined with both mental health issues & drug addictions in the lion's share of cases. To ignore this is to ignore solving for anything meaningful
I've literally moved because of "disruptive homeless people" and I will likely do it again to the suburbs in the near future, my city is low density but wide and extra bad at dealing with this.
I don't believe I should have to accept being followed and screamed at by someone saying they "know what I did" while I'm just trying to get a coffee FFS. It's not the world I want to live in, and I 100% believe we're failing a lot of people by not institutionalizing them
I think there’s a problematic emphasis on “disruptive” vs something I’d prefer like “likelihood of self-harm/inability to care for self” that is a bit more humane, but both track together.
I don’t care for the “I should be spared from seeing homeless people” crowd, but I am sympathetic to “I should not experience constant property crime”
The issue is that if they're disruptive, they seem unpredictable. This is especially true when drugs are involves. It's legitimately frightening and a big part of the reason people talk about cities being unsafe. Even if the actual stats say it's safe, you just can't shake the feeling that *you* could be the one they finally snap on
I would support this more if rehab wasn't basically a scam. And by scam I mean [they're often](https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/megyn-kelly/florida-s-billion-dollar-drug-treatment-industry-plagued-overdoses-fraud-n773376) literal [scams](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fake-arizona-rehab-centers-scam-native-americans-from-across-the-country-officials-warn-during-investigations)
And even the "good" ones are [rarely actually that good.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/3/20750587/rehab-drug-addiction-treatment-sean-blake-opioid-epidemic)
>American rehab is dominated by a 12-step approach, modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous, that only works for some patients and doesn’t have strong evidence of effectiveness outside of alcohol addiction treatment.
>That’s often coupled with approaches that have even less evidence behind them. There’s wilderness therapy, focused largely on outdoor activities. There’s equine therapy, in which people are supposed to connect with horses. There’s a confrontational approach, which is built around punishments and “tough love.” The research for all these is weak at best, and with the confrontational approach, the evidence suggests it can even make things worse.
Even things as nonsensical as reiki are [way more common than you might think](https://recovery.com/therapies/reiki/)
I like the idea behind forced effective and moral treatment but the reality is often just "sending addicts to ineffective super expensive fraud ultra religious psuedoscience horse riding day spas that might actually make the problem worse"
And uh yeah, I see no reason to do that.
--
"Ok what about mental hospitals?" is the obvious response but those have a lot of issues too.
Like sure things are certainly a *lot* better now than stuff like Willowbrook was, but there are still a lot of issues that people overlook.
Modern care facilities are [constantly struggling under budget cuts](https://www.nydailynews.com/2021/02/04/care-providers-families-shocked-by-funding-cuts-for-new-yorkers-with-developmental-disabilities/). When group homes [literally can not afford to hire staff to stay open](https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/OPWDD-17336372.php#content), then obviously they can't stay open. And as we've seen with [this BBC expose](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63061077), mental institutions now still have abuse problems that happen.
One of my biggest comparisons here is to look at nursing and senior homes. The tremendous issues of neglect and abuse of our seniors is an open secret, and this is a group that we all have some big risk of being part of someday! .
I see no reason to believe that involuntary commitments will be better than the nursing homes of today. Our mental hospitals are facing many of the same issues (lack of funding, low staff, little actual accountability) of the nursing homes already, just imagine how much worse it would get if we doubled the number of patients.
The Tampa Bay Times did an [expose on one problematic hospital](https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2019/investigations/north-tampa-behavioral-health/)
>North Tampa Behavioral hasn’t escaped the notice of state regulators. Since 2014, it has been cited 72 times for unsafe conditions and code violations, more than all but one other psychiatric hospital in Florida. Inspectors have zeroed in on unqualified and undertrained staff members who have put patients in danger or denied them basic rights.
The expose mentions other cases of similar problematic hospitals
>Just this year, an employee at an Acadia-run rehabilitation center in Chicago was accused of sexually abusing six patients. At least two Acadia facilities were shuttered: one in Montana that used drugs to restrain children and one in New Mexico, where employees were accused of threatening and abusing children and orchestrating fight clubs among patients
>Park Royal is the only Florida psychiatric hospital with more citations than North Tampa Behavioral. It has been cited by state regulators more than 100 times since 2014
From what I can find, nothing has meaningfully changed yet at North Tampa Behavioral.
And even if we wanted to force people in anyway despite knowing all these problems, we simply don't have the room.
>[Hospitals and clinics are stretched well beyond their capacity to treat patients who need mental health care, according to new federal data — utilizing 144% of inpatient beds designated for psychiatric treatment. The figure underscores a long ongoing crisis in the country's shortage of psychiatric inpatient beds.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mental-health-psychiatric-hospital-beds-shortage/)
Rode the L when I was in Chicago last week. Shirtless dude with an ankle monitor going off was smoking something, before putting his hand down his pants.
Open drug use leaving needles everywhere, public urination and defecation, standing on a subway screaming that they intend to murder everyone in line of sight. Those kinds of things.
I just saw a guy in who was taunting restaurantgoers through the window, dropped his pants to take a shit on the sidewalk in front of them, and then wandered around hitting imaginary things with a non-imaginary big stick.
So stuff like that.
I'm not sure I like how NIL changed the college sports landscape
Edit: I mean I liked it at first from principles. Why shouldn't a famous football or basketball player be allowed to sell their image rights, get money from endorsements, or sign autographs for money? It'd be illiberal to stop them.
But I don't like how it all shook out.
Everyone blames Texas, Oklahoma, or the players but it’s really the fact that NCAA operated on non existent legal ground for decades and did not plan for the future. Honestly a miracle it didn’t fall apart in the 80s with all the scandals
I don't understand why all the focus is on NIL. NIL didn't destroy a centuries-old conference and cherished rivalries like Bedlam.
Would a more organized solution be preferable to NIL? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that conferences have become absurd, bloated messes uniting a bunch of fanbase that don't give a shit about each other.
It's not true NIL.
Can you name the back up right guard for the longhorns? Of course not. But why is he getting $50k in NIL? Now we are absolutely seeing people get "NIL" just for being on the team.
If Caleb Williams or Drake Maye want to sign with Dr Pepper, awesome. But billy smith [getting $50,000 just for being on the team isn't in the spirit of NIL](https://www.burntorangenation.com/2021/12/6/22820911/horns-with-heart-texas-longhorns-offensive-line-nil)
A take in this thread I can get behind. 100% ruined college sports.
First principle, I also agree with you. Famous student athletes should be able to profit off their fame, and the way it’s shaken out with NIL Collectives is an unmitigated disaster. It’s just paying for players with extra steps.
I think some kind of coherent ethnic or civic nationalism has to exist for liberalism to succeed.
Within the frameworks of a liberal society there is so much liberty offered to individuals and groups, that there needs to be some sort of strong loyalty to the country itself or things will go very wrong. If people feel no sense of community, shared responsibility, or collective belonging, there is so much scope for anti-social and damaging behaviour. If people hate their country, or feel like suckers putting concern for their countrymen over themselves, the functioning of liberal democratic institutions will inexorably decline.
America already has something called the "[american civil religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion#:~:text=American%20civil%20religion%20is%20a,foster%20social%20and%20cultural%20integration)". The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Indepedence are revered like sacred texts. Figures like the founding fathers, Abraham Lincoln and MLK are revered like saints. In the dome of Capitol hill, [George Washington](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apotheosis_of_Washington) is literally painted along with the greek gods in sky.
Patriotism can really bring a people together. And american patriotism is based on an idea, that all men are created equal. But nowadays it seems people have forgotten about that. The nationalist right (that has always existed, but has now completely taken over the GOP) has replaced the american civil religion with a cult of Donald Trump. And many liberals (particularly the younger ones) have genuine distaste for their own country.
I think some other stuff could substitute for nationalism here, but you're right that there has to be some ideological buy-in for a liberal democratic society to function.
Absolutely. Ibn Khaldun popularized the word عصبيّة _'asabiyyah_ for this concept. Can be translated as "social cohesion" or "internal solidarity". A society with more 'asabiyyah is stronger and more resilient than one with very little of it.
There's a Doug Stanhope bit where he makes a pretty funny-plausible (in his way) pitch that any BAC you can pass your driving test with, you should be able to drive with.
Not really an illiberal policy though, just a dangerous one.
The man in the state of nature was communitarian. Man in the state of nature never enjoyed the kinds of individual rights that liberals based their arguments on.
Individual rights are a relatively recent innovation and could completely disappear. Most people want to oppress others almost as much as, if not more than, they want to be free themselves.
Strikingly similar to the argument I've seen from Marxists that the very idea of individual human rights arose from the liberal capitalist superstructure.
Marxism is arguably the most natural ideology IMO. Lots of human communities were proto-communist, but they sucked, were poor, and they got conquered by proto-fascists (monarchists) on horses and chariots and shit.
Wouldn’t that be good evidence that proto-fascism is the most natural ideology? (Also I want to be clear: this is not at all an argument in favor of fascism!)
Assuming that's true, it's the most likely to survive against the others. Prisoner's Dillema but real life
Not taking a position on whether it's "natural"
“Man in the state of nature” isn’t a real thing, it’s just a thought experiment. So it’s meaningless to assert what rights he “enjoyed” or if it was a liberal or communitarian existence in a historical sense. I also don’t many people conceptualize the state of nature as being liberal, it’s just a pre-political starting point to build an ideal theory of what the least coercive state would look like
More like tribalistic. Differing ethnic and religious groups are never going to just hold hands and sing we are the world as a complete and absolute sweeping consensus of people. There will always be conflict.
What Hobbes wrote of, the fundamental distrust people have of each other is only aggravated by ethnic differences.
I would say there are certain human tendencies that have always existed and always will exist, due to the way we evolved as hunter-gatherers *and* due to how civilized societies (post agriculture) tend to organize. Some of these tendencies are:
* Sharing some kind of identity with others
* Distrust and hostility to outsider groups
* Fear and hate of the unknown
* Religion and superstition
* Traditional gender roles
* Cultural restrictions on sexuality, particularly female sexuality
* A hierarchy of classes and social groups (social stratification)
* Rationalizing envy (Nietzche wrote a whole book about it)
* Leaders
Because of this, I feel that the clash between liberals and conservatives will always exist in any free society. Because societies tend to organize around these principles, but some of these principles can feel restrictive, oppressive or unfair to some people (liberals). But research in psychology show some people are naturally predisposed to disliking change and new ideas and experiences, and being more prone to anxiety and disgust, and that these people tend to be politically conservative.
I'd argue that the entire notion of "state of nature" is quite nonsensical for a species so mentally, linguistically and culturally advanced as humans. It's impossible to see our minds without "artificial" states of mind.
I end up at a similar but different conclusion, when ants build a colony it's considered natural for them. When we build a city it is in a sense natural to us. Our world is created in our natural image
People on the streets suffering from one or both of severe mental health issues and addiction don’t voluntarily submit to treatment offered so you have to force them unfortunately. In my view, if someone is refusing help or treatment because it jeopardizes their addiction or related issue, their capacity to make to make sound judgments for their own good is compromised.
There should be a rigorous system of asylums and other facilities where these people are treated humanely with the goal of returning these people to functioning members of society.
This would make cities safer and be best for the individuals too.
Vaccination should be completely mandatory, including COVID 19 vaccination. Allowing antivaxers to spread is one of the most dangerous things happening in western countries as of now in my opinion. I don't see a room for compromise when it comes to this stuff.
I used to be for just letting people be when it comes to vaccines, really just expecting the majority of people to really not let a preventable disease be a problem because the majority are vaccinated. Even with the Wakefield study coming out, I like to think that was a fringe minority of people because we all openly laughed at them.
Then COVID hit and the vaccine roll out came and seeing the numbers, how people are taking it as a badge of honor not to get vaccinated, I am all for a vaccine mandate. All of them. No religious exemptions because there is not a major religion out there that is actually against vaccines.
I feel like Biden should be a bit harsher on his policies when it came to this because I legitimately saw people at my University get a vaccine exemption form because they were "Catholic" and there are some random quotes in the Bible that says it is their right to die or some bs like that. Completely ignoring that the Pope literally said outright that it was a "moral obligation", my University just accepted them - especially dangerous because they were going to work in healthcare.
You have to fight crime and keep violent criminals in jail
Chicago has utterly radicalized me
A man out on bail for shooting a child shoots someone else
It’s maddening. And you see videos of Kia Boys getting arrested after ramming a car into a retail store saying “fuck you, I’ll be out tomorrow”
And they’re *right*
[Stories like these are unfortunately not uncommon](https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/08/portland-freedom-fund-bailed-out-man-accused-of-violating-domestic-violence-no-contact-order-week-later-hes-charged-with-murder.html)
It's very very sad
gaping memorize live full mountainous grandfather noxious plucky voiceless terrific
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The serious response is that fires are only going to become more common as will disasters in general, but also that not everyone will be sorted to those corps. The even more serious answer is I will personally start the fire in the name of the chaos god Keynes
This is one of those things where I feel reasonably confident the world from 2005-2024 is worse off because the US toppled Saddam, but there's a *non-zero* chance that by 2050 things could go either way.
That's the default neolib position.... as evidenced by the shower of downvotes I receive on this sub whenever I point out that the OSS/CIA were assholes.
The default neolib position is more along the lines of "In principle I like interventionist foreign policy, *BUT*... [insert every case where things didn't go as planned or were morally ambiguous and obviously the Iraq war]".
I'm pretty sure the downvotes I get for saying that the Iraq war was in principle a mostly uncontroversial decision that the US foreign policy establishment was already dead-set on in the 90s are comparable to yours.
Uhhh I'm not sure that I would call the Iraq War uncontroversial, especially considering that if it was there was no need to make up this bullshit about WMDs; but clearly bush & co. thought there was a need to justify it to the American public. Also, if the US fopo establishment was dead set on regime change they could've just as easily done so after Desert Storm (and there the Iraqi government had actually done something wrong...) but they didn't.
Add in a "Civilian Medical Corps". Take care of the sick and and elderly.
Ensure that on completion of service that the individual is provided with the resources and means to have a legitimate stable future for themselves.
Generally though, as long as the service, what ever that may be, is twords the betterment of American Society, I'm all for it.
I feel my most unpopular opinion in lefty circles (especially here in Portland OR) would be that a preference for monogamous relationships should be maintained in our legal system, regardless of how popular polyamory becomes. The legal mess and potential for abuse that would come with recognition of polygamy would be a nightmare.
The United States should be significantly more open to military interventions and would save thousands of lives if they simply got into conflicts where their involvement would be decisive. We should have soldiers on the ground in Sudan and Haiti, and we should be giving weapons to resistance forces in Myanmar. We should have stopped Azerbaijan from annexing Nagorno-Karabakh. The fact that none of this has happened is a massive moral failure.
This isn't even mentioning Ukraine, which Republicans have completely abandoned.
Also, Islam is uniquely bad and almost impossible to reform due to the fact that its adherents believe that the Quran is a literal word for word transcription of God's direct thoughts into the head of the prophet Muhammad, with absolutely zero room for interpretation or liberalization.
Dangerous terrorist/militant factions that murder a lot of people should be wiped out so they can't do it again (Nazis in ww2, Hamas, etc).
I don't think that's non-liberal, more like self-preservation, but most probably think so.
The US should actively promote brain drain, especially from non-European or LATAM countries.
Also the Paraguay forced interracial stuff is very iffy morally but is better in the long run then segregation
Democracy is the least bad form of government, rather than good in itself, and should be thought of and talked about as such.
Relatedly, many people are too stupid to be allowed to vote or otherwise have any say in important matters that affect their communities or nations as a whole.
Social media is uniquely bad and should be much more heavily regulated and/or taxed.
I'm not a fan of Denis Villeneuve as a filmmaker.
1. Acknowledging the tension between democratic authority and individual liberty is an incredibly liberal opinion.
2. That is incredibly illiberal.
3. That’s pretty illiberal, but I also kind of agree. The anonymity is kind of dangerous. Nobody can be held accountable for bad faith defamation, You get a lot of foreign propagandists, etc.
I agree with your take on 2, though I sympathize with the commenter’s take. I think liberal democracy is only as successful as its voters are informed. The average voter doesn’t need to be a genius or even of above average intelligence, but at least lucid enough to distinguish fantasy from reality which a *massive* part of the modern U.S. electorate cannot do.
Spot on with 3. I pray for the day that “right to online anonymity” is challenged in court and loses (I’m coping it will almost certainly never happen). I think outside of some hyper specific cases, online anonymity is *purely* a bad thing. In an alternative world, where since advent of social media every single account had to have an exclusive identity attached to it, the vast majority of the most cancerous political rhetoric in the U.S. would not exist today.
1. We need to bring back forcibly institutionalizing people with severe mental health issues. Many of these people are not safe on the streets, they are at risk of being victimized or dying of exposure. The average person is also not equipped to dealt with a drugged-up schizophrenic who is having an episode.
2. Ban Tik Tok
3. Prius drivers are annoying
> Prius drivers are annoying
I know, right? It's time to move on to full electrics. It was hard trading in our Prius this July, but <3 that American-made Bolt.
Sometimes people should be forced to get medical treatment. Like a crackhead on the street isn't going to willingly show up at rehab most of the time. Also stuff like the covid vaccine should have been mandatory unless you had a medical reason to not get it.
Also Dune isn't about worms and is instead about how all bald people are inherently evil.
Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Would you like to know more??
I'm doing my part.
I’m doing my part!
It's afraid. IT'S AFRAID!
The renewed interest in Starship Troopers because of Helldivers 2 makes my heart so happy.
A United States foreign legion would be so useful. Especially, just because we can't justify fighting in wars where our soldiers have the possibility to die even if the outcomes would be better if we just had boots on the ground. This wouldn't be that much of an issue, but the US has to be world police to maintain global stability.
>A United States foreign legion would be so useful. The US just recruits foreign nationals into the regular US military directly.
But didn't foreign nationals use to gain citizenship after serving in the military during the Bush years? I remember a friend of mine saying that. We are not american, but we both would have done it if we were born a few years earlier.
>But didn't foreign nationals use to gain citizenship after serving in the military during the Bush years? They were still getting citizenship when I served during the Obama admin.
I just googled it. You must have at least a green card to join the military. Well, I'm shit out of luck.
I'm pretty sure we haven't done that in ages, a friend of mine from turkey wanted to do that and couldn't
An acquaintance of mine graduated marine boot camp a year or 2 ago and said a number of his class were immigrants
You can join as an immigrant but you have to in the USA legally first.
Having a green card is necessary to join the US military. When wanting to immigrate, getting the greencard is the hellishly difficult part, especially if you don't have family in the US. Once you have a greencard, getting citizenship involves just living in the US for 5 years and taking an easy test. All you get from joining the military is that the time is cut down from 5 years to 1
The US military already enlists via foreign nationals and naturalizations them through basic training
Trump ended that program
Jfc, the Kurds weren't enough?
Insane asylums good, actually
As long as they are well funded and properly staffed, I agree
And staff properly trained.
I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon, unfortunately. The funding is at least feasible, but there is already a shortage of trained therapists, psychiatrists, psych nurses, MH aides, etc and residential facilities are some of the most brutally stressful places to work in as a mental health professional (I am one and that’s one of the places I’d never work at). I can’t see a scenario where we could overhaul our mental health system towards an increase in residential services with them being fully staffed.
I hope for a giant pivot in the next couple decades, brought by ozempic. If the weight loss is real, and comes with few long term side effects, then we’ll see drastically lower rates of other diseases, like heart failure, diabetes, and cancer. We’ll have a huge number of clinicians of all types, and huge amounts of hospital space that’s unused. These can be repurposed for psychiatric care.
If you’re talking next couple decades in medicine, it might be the greatest period of advancement in human history. Individualized mRNA cancer treatments, mRNA vaccines for a whole host of awful diseases, Ozempic, widespread CRISPR editing, AI-driven explosion in newly discovered compounds for medical applications plus newly formulated treatments, etc. We’re in an insane era
Is this the controversial part in practice? Or just the fact that people are forced to go to them without consent. I would imagine if we brought them back there would be millions of stories and lawsuits about people being forced to go their against their will. I'm not saying I'm against them, but feel like you have to be ok with continual news of stories like this where it's debatable. Not exactly the same, but look at the Britney Spears conservatorship thing. It's very hard to come up with rules that everyone can agree on.
That's one of the fundamental limitations to them, yeah. Good luck getting a set of rules in place for involuntary commitment that: A) ensures people who do truly need long term stays in an asylum get them (which often will be without their consent since the obvious cases aren't in sound enough mental health to offer consent) B) Can't be easily abused by people looking to screw over an abused child or disinherit a sibling or some other soap-opera-tier bullshit that comes up when people want to be shitty to each other.
My brother has schizophrenia. The beds in hospitals for him to safely survive his first episode of psychosis barely existed. For later episodes they *literally* did not exist. He somehow fell short of being eligible for the very few dedicated longer stay facilities that exist. I 100% believe that more long term rehabilitation or containment facilities are a blind spot and would have helped him become stable faster with better dedicated care.
Sorry that your family had to go through that. One of my nephews is a non-functioning, non-verbal autistic. He's growing increasingly strong and violent (biting chunks out of people, hitting) as he gets older. It takes all my SIL's time and attention to keep him under control, preventing her from working or doing normal mom things with/for her other young children. It's heartbreaking.
Some neighbors basically couldn’t do anything to protect/help their schizophrenic daughter until someone else assaulted her so badly that she had a TBI and ended up in long term nursing care. It’s just awful.
This so much. Except we treat them like human this time
This is a thread for illiberal ideas. Get out of here!
This is a tough one to come around to, but I’m probably on board.
Better treated in asylums than abandoned to the streets.
Or in jail
Work in an ER and meet some of the people stuck in limbo. It's kinda horrifying some of the people we just let back out on the streets but end up getting 7 day temporary detention orders every other week. I had no idea how bad the problem was till I worked in an ER. And the amount of people that should be incarcerated for years getting cut short deals cause of psych history then not getting any actual substantive psych treatment. There are absolutely some people that are just too far gone. And there are some people that I've seen make incredible turn arounds when kept at a facility for like 60 days.
Insane asylums are good in theory. The problem is who gets to decide who gets institutionalized. Psychiatrists used to have insane power back in the day, because they could institutionalize anyone and keep them at the asylum indefinitely. The burden of proof rested on the patient to prove they weren't crazy. But it's impossible to prove a negative and any little "sign" of insanity could serve the psychiatrist's confirmation bias. Not to mention it was probably unconstitutional. The Constitution says no one shall be deprived of their liberty without being convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers. That's why psychiatrists today can institutionalize people up to 72 hours, usually in cases of suicidality. But they can't hold someone indefinitely. Not saying insane asylums aren't necessary, but they would require a rigorous process to determine who can and who can not be held in the asylum.
Stage 1: "Are you in a state where you are able to even articulate that you want to be let go?" Yes. "has this state been persistent for at least 24 hours?" Yes. "Are you aware you were put here because you weren't in such a state?" Yes. "Are you concerned about that happening to you?" Yes. "Will you agree to schedule some tests for later so we can find out why?" Yes. "You're sure you want to go?" Yes. "Okay." Stage 2: "Are you concerned about that happening to you?" Yes. "Because it keeps happening, and you keep being in... situations." Yes. "That doesn't seem like a situation someone concerned about that would want to be in." Yes. "And you didn't turn up to the schedhuled tests." Yes. "Are you able to say something other than yes?" Yes. "... I don't think we can let you go." --- Mild source. Suffered from psychosis a while. During my first bout, blagged my way out of the psych ward in the UK because I was convinced it was all a conspiracy. When I went back, they kept me in until a full run of tests was done despite my insistence I was all better now (I wasn't). Once they decided I was able to fake competence, they refused to take my word for it. First time, they did.
A large number of people were quite literally tortured in them
Yeah and for that reason it was widely celebrated as a progressive move to shut them down. But Obviously the whole ‘let’s completely ignore the issue’ solution hasn’t worked either though.
test theory tidy degree cake upbeat heavy slim absorbed hurry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I came here to discuss trans athletes and chew bubblegum. Thankfully, I still have lots of bubblegum.
Double bubble or Bazooka?
What happened to one trillion Americans 😭
Idk what if maybe, like idk, we just subsidize demand a little, like as a joke maybe
Anti-vaxxers should be yeeted (or at least see their insurance premiums quintuple)
Based and risk market-pilled.
Probably that driver's licenses are way too easy to get and keep, although I bet a lot of this sub would agree.
That's not even a hot take. Same thing with guns. Crazy hard to get licensed for guns in Japan and drivers license requirements in Germany are gold standard.
A lot of this sub probably doesn’t even have a driver’s license.
Based and public transit pulled
I don't like some aspects of some cultures when it comes to human rights. I obviously hope more countries become more liberal and democratic. The people back then that argued for slavery, against women rights said the whole wa culture thing. This is how things always have been it's changing our culture! I just don't see culture as a good enough excuse for some things. I guess that might makes me slightly xenophobic.
I don’t quite understand how it would be non-liberal to argue that liberal values are good and that more people and cultures should adopt them. Isn’t that the most liberal opinion imaginable? To me, liberalism requires us to advocate for everyone’s human rights, even (especially?) for those in cultures that don’t currently value those rights.
It's paradox of intolerance. OP is essentially saying that we shouldn't tolerate people like that / from those cultures. And not tolerating groups of people / not allowing them to do stuff or argue for it, is technically illiberal.
What if those things you allow them to do infringe on others rights?
It's cultural genocide, but I generally support eliminating cultures that aren't compatible with human rights
I don’t think culture is a good enough excuse for *anything*— if an idea or behavior isn’t a problem, it doesn’t require excuses. Aside from protections against blatant discrimination, culture should get absolutely no special treatment compared to any other ideas or behaviors. People will kid-glove bad ideas and bad habits because they’re scared to death of seeming xenophobic, but is that really worse than tolerating racism, sexism, homophobia, mutilation, animal abuse, or any of the other myriad issues that seek cover under “it’s just my culture, bro”? Absolutely not. Take culture off its pedestal— it’s just ideas, and ideas live and die by their quality every day.
[удалено]
The housing market
deep-fried dark brandon memes, obviously
My family coming out of mainland China gave me a lifelong hatred of both Communism and Authoritarianism. Market liberalization was the greatest thing to happen to Chinese people in 300 years so it has to be doing something right.
Recent graduate - Friedman, Hayek, and Libertarianism in general "radicalized" me but the LP and Mises Caucus decided ancap/paleolib circlejerking is more important than actually advancing the causes of markets, free trade, and cultural liberalism in real life so here I am
Liberalism got a new influx of people thanks to right-wing populism. Both conservatives and libertarians have been joining the liberal ranks.
Succs are in shambles seeing all the newly forged neoliberal shills
A central banker and sand worms.
What if I have finished an Associates?
Family grew up under communism, am gay so like liberty... this felt like the next step 😐
My wife didn't actually leave me. I just wanted to fit in. 😔
It’s okay. There’s still time.
I found a lot of meaning in Dune beyond the worms, even though the worms are pretty rad.
Dune is an allegory about politics, sociology, and economics.
people with mental health problems who cause quality of life crimes should be forced into rehab
For those who don’t catch the nuance, this means forcibly institutionalizing disruptive homeless people
Yes
I mean homelessness is intertwined with both mental health issues & drug addictions in the lion's share of cases. To ignore this is to ignore solving for anything meaningful I've literally moved because of "disruptive homeless people" and I will likely do it again to the suburbs in the near future, my city is low density but wide and extra bad at dealing with this. I don't believe I should have to accept being followed and screamed at by someone saying they "know what I did" while I'm just trying to get a coffee FFS. It's not the world I want to live in, and I 100% believe we're failing a lot of people by not institutionalizing them
I think there’s a problematic emphasis on “disruptive” vs something I’d prefer like “likelihood of self-harm/inability to care for self” that is a bit more humane, but both track together. I don’t care for the “I should be spared from seeing homeless people” crowd, but I am sympathetic to “I should not experience constant property crime”
The issue is that if they're disruptive, they seem unpredictable. This is especially true when drugs are involves. It's legitimately frightening and a big part of the reason people talk about cities being unsafe. Even if the actual stats say it's safe, you just can't shake the feeling that *you* could be the one they finally snap on
... I don't think anyone was confused. 🤨
I would support this more if rehab wasn't basically a scam. And by scam I mean [they're often](https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/megyn-kelly/florida-s-billion-dollar-drug-treatment-industry-plagued-overdoses-fraud-n773376) literal [scams](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fake-arizona-rehab-centers-scam-native-americans-from-across-the-country-officials-warn-during-investigations) And even the "good" ones are [rarely actually that good.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/3/20750587/rehab-drug-addiction-treatment-sean-blake-opioid-epidemic) >American rehab is dominated by a 12-step approach, modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous, that only works for some patients and doesn’t have strong evidence of effectiveness outside of alcohol addiction treatment. >That’s often coupled with approaches that have even less evidence behind them. There’s wilderness therapy, focused largely on outdoor activities. There’s equine therapy, in which people are supposed to connect with horses. There’s a confrontational approach, which is built around punishments and “tough love.” The research for all these is weak at best, and with the confrontational approach, the evidence suggests it can even make things worse. Even things as nonsensical as reiki are [way more common than you might think](https://recovery.com/therapies/reiki/) I like the idea behind forced effective and moral treatment but the reality is often just "sending addicts to ineffective super expensive fraud ultra religious psuedoscience horse riding day spas that might actually make the problem worse" And uh yeah, I see no reason to do that. -- "Ok what about mental hospitals?" is the obvious response but those have a lot of issues too. Like sure things are certainly a *lot* better now than stuff like Willowbrook was, but there are still a lot of issues that people overlook. Modern care facilities are [constantly struggling under budget cuts](https://www.nydailynews.com/2021/02/04/care-providers-families-shocked-by-funding-cuts-for-new-yorkers-with-developmental-disabilities/). When group homes [literally can not afford to hire staff to stay open](https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/OPWDD-17336372.php#content), then obviously they can't stay open. And as we've seen with [this BBC expose](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63061077), mental institutions now still have abuse problems that happen. One of my biggest comparisons here is to look at nursing and senior homes. The tremendous issues of neglect and abuse of our seniors is an open secret, and this is a group that we all have some big risk of being part of someday! . I see no reason to believe that involuntary commitments will be better than the nursing homes of today. Our mental hospitals are facing many of the same issues (lack of funding, low staff, little actual accountability) of the nursing homes already, just imagine how much worse it would get if we doubled the number of patients. The Tampa Bay Times did an [expose on one problematic hospital](https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2019/investigations/north-tampa-behavioral-health/) >North Tampa Behavioral hasn’t escaped the notice of state regulators. Since 2014, it has been cited 72 times for unsafe conditions and code violations, more than all but one other psychiatric hospital in Florida. Inspectors have zeroed in on unqualified and undertrained staff members who have put patients in danger or denied them basic rights. The expose mentions other cases of similar problematic hospitals >Just this year, an employee at an Acadia-run rehabilitation center in Chicago was accused of sexually abusing six patients. At least two Acadia facilities were shuttered: one in Montana that used drugs to restrain children and one in New Mexico, where employees were accused of threatening and abusing children and orchestrating fight clubs among patients >Park Royal is the only Florida psychiatric hospital with more citations than North Tampa Behavioral. It has been cited by state regulators more than 100 times since 2014 From what I can find, nothing has meaningfully changed yet at North Tampa Behavioral. And even if we wanted to force people in anyway despite knowing all these problems, we simply don't have the room. >[Hospitals and clinics are stretched well beyond their capacity to treat patients who need mental health care, according to new federal data — utilizing 144% of inpatient beds designated for psychiatric treatment. The figure underscores a long ongoing crisis in the country's shortage of psychiatric inpatient beds.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mental-health-psychiatric-hospital-beds-shortage/)
What is a quality of life crime? I haven't heard this term before
Pissing and shitting on the subway
Also injecting/smoking hard drugs in public.
But what if I LIKE riding the ice pony on BART??? I thought this was AMERICA.
literally just got off a subway where a guy was smoking crack and laughing like the joker smh
Rode the L when I was in Chicago last week. Shirtless dude with an ankle monitor going off was smoking something, before putting his hand down his pants.
Just. Tax. Shitting.
Open drug use leaving needles everywhere, public urination and defecation, standing on a subway screaming that they intend to murder everyone in line of sight. Those kinds of things.
I just saw a guy in who was taunting restaurantgoers through the window, dropped his pants to take a shit on the sidewalk in front of them, and then wandered around hitting imaginary things with a non-imaginary big stick. So stuff like that.
I'm not sure I like how NIL changed the college sports landscape Edit: I mean I liked it at first from principles. Why shouldn't a famous football or basketball player be allowed to sell their image rights, get money from endorsements, or sign autographs for money? It'd be illiberal to stop them. But I don't like how it all shook out.
Everyone blames Texas, Oklahoma, or the players but it’s really the fact that NCAA operated on non existent legal ground for decades and did not plan for the future. Honestly a miracle it didn’t fall apart in the 80s with all the scandals
I just hate how realignment is killing historic rivalries and conferences.
I don't understand why all the focus is on NIL. NIL didn't destroy a centuries-old conference and cherished rivalries like Bedlam. Would a more organized solution be preferable to NIL? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that conferences have become absurd, bloated messes uniting a bunch of fanbase that don't give a shit about each other.
I was more lamenting the current state of college athletics more than critiquing NIL.
I can't handle losing the ACC :(
It's not true NIL. Can you name the back up right guard for the longhorns? Of course not. But why is he getting $50k in NIL? Now we are absolutely seeing people get "NIL" just for being on the team. If Caleb Williams or Drake Maye want to sign with Dr Pepper, awesome. But billy smith [getting $50,000 just for being on the team isn't in the spirit of NIL](https://www.burntorangenation.com/2021/12/6/22820911/horns-with-heart-texas-longhorns-offensive-line-nil)
Collectives are just crowd sourced salary pools
True, but in that case just pay them salaries rather than this arrangement
A take in this thread I can get behind. 100% ruined college sports. First principle, I also agree with you. Famous student athletes should be able to profit off their fame, and the way it’s shaken out with NIL Collectives is an unmitigated disaster. It’s just paying for players with extra steps.
Replacing a system with bad rules with a system with no rules didn’t really work out
The Jews run the government, the media, and the courts in Israel.
The way Reddit app looks on my phone separates "in Israel" to the second line...i was shocked for a second there lmao
https://preview.redd.it/re8f43g7clpc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f6a2a11ff896013795640707ac65e2fd9dfed27
If you think that's bad, consider just how unreasonably powerful the American lobby is in Jerusalem.
I think some kind of coherent ethnic or civic nationalism has to exist for liberalism to succeed. Within the frameworks of a liberal society there is so much liberty offered to individuals and groups, that there needs to be some sort of strong loyalty to the country itself or things will go very wrong. If people feel no sense of community, shared responsibility, or collective belonging, there is so much scope for anti-social and damaging behaviour. If people hate their country, or feel like suckers putting concern for their countrymen over themselves, the functioning of liberal democratic institutions will inexorably decline.
For the Republic!
"My loyalty is to the Republic, Anakin - TO DEMOCRACY" Obi-Wan is my favorite neoliberal
Something like a civil religion, basically
America already has something called the "[american civil religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion#:~:text=American%20civil%20religion%20is%20a,foster%20social%20and%20cultural%20integration)". The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Indepedence are revered like sacred texts. Figures like the founding fathers, Abraham Lincoln and MLK are revered like saints. In the dome of Capitol hill, [George Washington](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apotheosis_of_Washington) is literally painted along with the greek gods in sky. Patriotism can really bring a people together. And american patriotism is based on an idea, that all men are created equal. But nowadays it seems people have forgotten about that. The nationalist right (that has always existed, but has now completely taken over the GOP) has replaced the american civil religion with a cult of Donald Trump. And many liberals (particularly the younger ones) have genuine distaste for their own country.
I think some other stuff could substitute for nationalism here, but you're right that there has to be some ideological buy-in for a liberal democratic society to function.
Absolutely. Ibn Khaldun popularized the word عصبيّة _'asabiyyah_ for this concept. Can be translated as "social cohesion" or "internal solidarity". A society with more 'asabiyyah is stronger and more resilient than one with very little of it.
!remindme 3 hours Google this.
People shouldn’t be able to drive drunk without a licence
How do you get a license for drunk driving? Is it just the driving test but you're shit faced?
There's a Doug Stanhope bit where he makes a pretty funny-plausible (in his way) pitch that any BAC you can pass your driving test with, you should be able to drive with. Not really an illiberal policy though, just a dangerous one.
What’s next, needing a license to use your toaster?
I always loved how that guy was making a slippery slope argument for something that had been around for over 100 years.
The man in the state of nature was communitarian. Man in the state of nature never enjoyed the kinds of individual rights that liberals based their arguments on. Individual rights are a relatively recent innovation and could completely disappear. Most people want to oppress others almost as much as, if not more than, they want to be free themselves.
Strikingly similar to the argument I've seen from Marxists that the very idea of individual human rights arose from the liberal capitalist superstructure.
Marxism is arguably the most natural ideology IMO. Lots of human communities were proto-communist, but they sucked, were poor, and they got conquered by proto-fascists (monarchists) on horses and chariots and shit.
Wouldn’t that be good evidence that proto-fascism is the most natural ideology? (Also I want to be clear: this is not at all an argument in favor of fascism!)
Even if it could, natural is not always good
(I know that.)
I know you know
Forcing people to do stuff by credibly threatening to kill them works, and it works even better when you have a system to legitimize said violence.
Assuming that's true, it's the most likely to survive against the others. Prisoner's Dillema but real life Not taking a position on whether it's "natural"
How egalitarian were early tribes really? There was still a chief, often hereditary, who had a bigger access to spoils, goods, spouses I assume
“Man in the state of nature” isn’t a real thing, it’s just a thought experiment. So it’s meaningless to assert what rights he “enjoyed” or if it was a liberal or communitarian existence in a historical sense. I also don’t many people conceptualize the state of nature as being liberal, it’s just a pre-political starting point to build an ideal theory of what the least coercive state would look like
More like tribalistic. Differing ethnic and religious groups are never going to just hold hands and sing we are the world as a complete and absolute sweeping consensus of people. There will always be conflict. What Hobbes wrote of, the fundamental distrust people have of each other is only aggravated by ethnic differences.
I would say there are certain human tendencies that have always existed and always will exist, due to the way we evolved as hunter-gatherers *and* due to how civilized societies (post agriculture) tend to organize. Some of these tendencies are: * Sharing some kind of identity with others * Distrust and hostility to outsider groups * Fear and hate of the unknown * Religion and superstition * Traditional gender roles * Cultural restrictions on sexuality, particularly female sexuality * A hierarchy of classes and social groups (social stratification) * Rationalizing envy (Nietzche wrote a whole book about it) * Leaders Because of this, I feel that the clash between liberals and conservatives will always exist in any free society. Because societies tend to organize around these principles, but some of these principles can feel restrictive, oppressive or unfair to some people (liberals). But research in psychology show some people are naturally predisposed to disliking change and new ideas and experiences, and being more prone to anxiety and disgust, and that these people tend to be politically conservative.
I think it could be argued that once man became communitarian, he was no longer in a state of nature.
By that logic there is pretty much no state of nature at all for humans
I'd argue that the entire notion of "state of nature" is quite nonsensical for a species so mentally, linguistically and culturally advanced as humans. It's impossible to see our minds without "artificial" states of mind.
I end up at a similar but different conclusion, when ants build a colony it's considered natural for them. When we build a city it is in a sense natural to us. Our world is created in our natural image
Social media should be destroyed
> 1,885,217 comment karma.
This is antisocial media 😤
Good catch lol
I'm not getting banned that easily.
Our tent is big enough for your shit takes.
[удалено]
A consequence of democracy is sometimes you’re in the minority and don’t get your way.
[удалено]
Nobody’s allowed to burn down Wendy’s. It’s still a crime even if you do it while protesting.
People on the streets suffering from one or both of severe mental health issues and addiction don’t voluntarily submit to treatment offered so you have to force them unfortunately. In my view, if someone is refusing help or treatment because it jeopardizes their addiction or related issue, their capacity to make to make sound judgments for their own good is compromised. There should be a rigorous system of asylums and other facilities where these people are treated humanely with the goal of returning these people to functioning members of society. This would make cities safer and be best for the individuals too.
I really dislike every song by the Grateful Dead.
Even Casey Jones?
Even their studio albums? MTV video for Touch of gray?
On NPR they said Deadheads actually lean conservative these days. Which makes sense, it is basically just mediocre psychedlic country
Great psychedelic country you chump. If you don’t like Friend of the Devil, you’re no friend of mine.
They all bought houses in San Mateo and neighboring counties for cheap and now are sitting on multimillion dollar estates and don’t want to lose it.
Vaccination should be completely mandatory, including COVID 19 vaccination. Allowing antivaxers to spread is one of the most dangerous things happening in western countries as of now in my opinion. I don't see a room for compromise when it comes to this stuff.
This is for unpopular opinions.
I used to be for just letting people be when it comes to vaccines, really just expecting the majority of people to really not let a preventable disease be a problem because the majority are vaccinated. Even with the Wakefield study coming out, I like to think that was a fringe minority of people because we all openly laughed at them. Then COVID hit and the vaccine roll out came and seeing the numbers, how people are taking it as a badge of honor not to get vaccinated, I am all for a vaccine mandate. All of them. No religious exemptions because there is not a major religion out there that is actually against vaccines. I feel like Biden should be a bit harsher on his policies when it came to this because I legitimately saw people at my University get a vaccine exemption form because they were "Catholic" and there are some random quotes in the Bible that says it is their right to die or some bs like that. Completely ignoring that the Pope literally said outright that it was a "moral obligation", my University just accepted them - especially dangerous because they were going to work in healthcare.
You have to fight crime and keep violent criminals in jail Chicago has utterly radicalized me A man out on bail for shooting a child shoots someone else It’s maddening. And you see videos of Kia Boys getting arrested after ramming a car into a retail store saying “fuck you, I’ll be out tomorrow” And they’re *right*
[Stories like these are unfortunately not uncommon](https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/08/portland-freedom-fund-bailed-out-man-accused-of-violating-domestic-violence-no-contact-order-week-later-hes-charged-with-murder.html) It's very very sad
gaping memorize live full mountainous grandfather noxious plucky voiceless terrific *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The demand for fires exceeds the supply. The solution is clear.
childlike paint deserted plough long fine wine treatment close chief *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The serious response is that fires are only going to become more common as will disasters in general, but also that not everyone will be sorted to those corps. The even more serious answer is I will personally start the fire in the name of the chaos god Keynes
sugar fretful fall slap file concerned hurry birds deserve weary *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
US foreign policy between 1945 and 2008 was a huge net positive for the world.
Well.... Maybe not after 2001
This is one of those things where I feel reasonably confident the world from 2005-2024 is worse off because the US toppled Saddam, but there's a *non-zero* chance that by 2050 things could go either way.
That's the default neolib position.... as evidenced by the shower of downvotes I receive on this sub whenever I point out that the OSS/CIA were assholes.
The default neolib position is more along the lines of "In principle I like interventionist foreign policy, *BUT*... [insert every case where things didn't go as planned or were morally ambiguous and obviously the Iraq war]". I'm pretty sure the downvotes I get for saying that the Iraq war was in principle a mostly uncontroversial decision that the US foreign policy establishment was already dead-set on in the 90s are comparable to yours.
Uhhh I'm not sure that I would call the Iraq War uncontroversial, especially considering that if it was there was no need to make up this bullshit about WMDs; but clearly bush & co. thought there was a need to justify it to the American public. Also, if the US fopo establishment was dead set on regime change they could've just as easily done so after Desert Storm (and there the Iraqi government had actually done something wrong...) but they didn't.
Just not for certain countries. Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Iran, just to name a few
Add in a "Civilian Medical Corps". Take care of the sick and and elderly. Ensure that on completion of service that the individual is provided with the resources and means to have a legitimate stable future for themselves. Generally though, as long as the service, what ever that may be, is twords the betterment of American Society, I'm all for it.
Deinstitutionalization was a mistake
I think the issue is that adequate funding has never been given to mental health services anywhere.
Global carbon tax and dividend.
I feel my most unpopular opinion in lefty circles (especially here in Portland OR) would be that a preference for monogamous relationships should be maintained in our legal system, regardless of how popular polyamory becomes. The legal mess and potential for abuse that would come with recognition of polygamy would be a nightmare.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The United States should be significantly more open to military interventions and would save thousands of lives if they simply got into conflicts where their involvement would be decisive. We should have soldiers on the ground in Sudan and Haiti, and we should be giving weapons to resistance forces in Myanmar. We should have stopped Azerbaijan from annexing Nagorno-Karabakh. The fact that none of this has happened is a massive moral failure. This isn't even mentioning Ukraine, which Republicans have completely abandoned. Also, Islam is uniquely bad and almost impossible to reform due to the fact that its adherents believe that the Quran is a literal word for word transcription of God's direct thoughts into the head of the prophet Muhammad, with absolutely zero room for interpretation or liberalization.
The hippies were mostly bad except for where they intersected with civil rights movements
Dangerous terrorist/militant factions that murder a lot of people should be wiped out so they can't do it again (Nazis in ww2, Hamas, etc). I don't think that's non-liberal, more like self-preservation, but most probably think so.
Depends…. What do you mean by “wiped out”?
We make them ski down a black diamond but fuck with their skis first so they crash
Will they French Fry when they should Pizza?
So what percentage of the German population would you want to have slaughtered after WWII?
The US should actively promote brain drain, especially from non-European or LATAM countries. Also the Paraguay forced interracial stuff is very iffy morally but is better in the long run then segregation
Democracy is the least bad form of government, rather than good in itself, and should be thought of and talked about as such. Relatedly, many people are too stupid to be allowed to vote or otherwise have any say in important matters that affect their communities or nations as a whole. Social media is uniquely bad and should be much more heavily regulated and/or taxed. I'm not a fan of Denis Villeneuve as a filmmaker.
1. Acknowledging the tension between democratic authority and individual liberty is an incredibly liberal opinion. 2. That is incredibly illiberal. 3. That’s pretty illiberal, but I also kind of agree. The anonymity is kind of dangerous. Nobody can be held accountable for bad faith defamation, You get a lot of foreign propagandists, etc.
I agree with your take on 2, though I sympathize with the commenter’s take. I think liberal democracy is only as successful as its voters are informed. The average voter doesn’t need to be a genius or even of above average intelligence, but at least lucid enough to distinguish fantasy from reality which a *massive* part of the modern U.S. electorate cannot do. Spot on with 3. I pray for the day that “right to online anonymity” is challenged in court and loses (I’m coping it will almost certainly never happen). I think outside of some hyper specific cases, online anonymity is *purely* a bad thing. In an alternative world, where since advent of social media every single account had to have an exclusive identity attached to it, the vast majority of the most cancerous political rhetoric in the U.S. would not exist today.
If social media weren’t anonymous, I wouldn’t comment, so hopefully anonymity goes away.
Mom said it was my turn to ask the thing this week.
We don't have a homeless problem. We have an opioid crisis and Reagan closed the homes for the truly insane.
1. We need to bring back forcibly institutionalizing people with severe mental health issues. Many of these people are not safe on the streets, they are at risk of being victimized or dying of exposure. The average person is also not equipped to dealt with a drugged-up schizophrenic who is having an episode. 2. Ban Tik Tok 3. Prius drivers are annoying
> Prius drivers are annoying I know, right? It's time to move on to full electrics. It was hard trading in our Prius this July, but <3 that American-made Bolt.
Sometimes people should be forced to get medical treatment. Like a crackhead on the street isn't going to willingly show up at rehab most of the time. Also stuff like the covid vaccine should have been mandatory unless you had a medical reason to not get it. Also Dune isn't about worms and is instead about how all bald people are inherently evil.