The only reason you see differences of motivation and intention is because you're in one of the groups.
My take is leftist (and I don't mean American liberal), anti-authoritarian, anti-imperialist, anti-genocide, and I don't think there's any difference of motivation and intention in the US. The "bad" group voters (D or R) feel they're protecting the poor, the kids, the families, etc., while the other was attempting to undermine democracy.
To talk only of speech, the Democrats were in charge when the demonisation and criminalisation of anti-genocide protests started in earnest, they were in charge when TikTok was banned for Israel, they were enthusiastically in charge when cancelling/censoring/fining for "hate-speech" (== whatever the gov wants it to be) became a legal gray area (and was then adopted by liberals the world over, see UK). Every other problem the Rs are criticised for (war, corruption, poverty, genocide!!!) was started/facilitated/ignored by the Ds, but people forget it instantly. Except, of course, paying lip service to identity politics.
I have no reason to believe the world would have been much different today had Democrats stayed in power. Look at how the "leftest" Dems vote. Actually, criticising the US as a leftist would have been harder: you'd be instantly viewed as a Nazi.
Both groups are sides of the same coin when it comes to keeping power and subjugating others to it, more or less violently.
Edit: to avoid posting empty criticism, what I mean is that to find a left party, or a party actually attempting to make life better for the poor and disenfranchised and not wanting to kill those who happen to be located near oil and Israel, you have to look away from the Rs and the Ds.
I can describe myself in the same way as you, and yet, if I lived in a country where ownership is allowed, I'd always vote to keep it so, even without having the intention of owning a weapon myself, because otherwise the balance of power shifts too much in the favour of the State/ruling class.
I disagree with the sibling comments about defending the country against an invader (if your country is facing invasion, weapons will be readily available) and defending yourself against crime (it's a non-issue in any non-failed state, and in a failed state weapons are readily available anyway and rarely make any difference).
But in a world where wealth inequality is increasing, where surveillance is ever more present, the tiny probability of the population being able to resist when it finally rises up justifies the very tangible downsides of an armed population.
I am aware that there are many arguments against this view, but I think the downsides of an authoritarian state with a monopoly on violence are too dire to be brushed aside.
This is the first use case for firearms I can understand. I hate it, I hate even that we have to have this discussion in a so-called civilized world, but here we are, and I understand it.
The world first becomes civilized when groups and bodies of people have tensioned, proportional leverage against one another - lest there's low incentive for the naturally more leveraging group to engage in virtuous action. Of course, we see it time and time again where both governments AND people use the leverages vested upon them in functionally incorrect or anti-social ways, but it is the closest to an equilibrium between two perpetually-unwieldy groups (governments, the governed)
In a nutshell, the tension of existential leverage that the government has on you through their monopoly on violence is thereby "equally" leveraged by your right to own firearms - and the implicit extralegal right to use it against them - in an unjust event. And a government SHOULD be perpetually worried for when you'd eventually consider something "unjust" enough for you to exercise that right - as it creates a chilling effect for them to even attempt it.
In a discussion about increasing fish population "after decades of effort", it's surreal to see a suggestion to kill them, or at the very least rip a hole in their mouths.
I'm always surprised at how people can be so unaware, suggesting killing as a meditative and beautiful activity...
I'll contrast with sibling comments. You're correct to raise caution towards fishing Pacific salmon, even in catch and release. Release mortality from one study I've found is about 25-40% https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016578362... It's worse during high water temperatures. They're likely quite fatigued by the time they arrive.
That said, this caution is not always warranted generally. Location, species, and season significantly matter. In healthy ecosystems, there's no harm to the group even if the individual fish might not agree.
There are a lot of different fish, and most are not threatened in anyway. Often the larger threat is over population and they need predators - like humans - to prevent that.
my claim would be something like how the recommendation of fishing in response to news of conservation efforts is as absurd as recommending spankings in response to news of more babies being born: stupid, harmful, and self-serving.
I’m sure we both have cared for and loved animals at some point! There’s nothing wrong with recognizing that a fish can feel pain much like a cat or a dog or a rabbit or a horse.
Can an insect feel pain? What about a mushroom, or a plant? What things are conscious enough to feel pain? I'm genuinely asking because I because it seems arbitrary as to where the line gets drawn. Before the 1980s it was the medical consensus that babies weren't capable of feeling pain even though this is now widely recognized as untrue.
I don't think the line is quite so arbitrary! Virtually all animals (with a few exceptions!) have a central nervous system, which is required to "feel" pain, to my understanding.
The good news is that we can adapt our thinking and behavior in light of new evidence.
I mean catch and release is better than being dinner, and the prevalence of fly fishing as a hobby goes a long way toward garnering public and financial support for restoration activities.
So your post got flagged, and I wonder what was controversial about it.
Wouldn't you agree that this zero-sum quality ultimately stems from increasing wealth inequality?
While scarcity is a reality indeed, more egalitarian societies, where life can be satisfactory whether you've studied with billionaire kids or in your town's vocational college, the issue is much lesser.
I'd argue measures that reduce wealth inequality would be the solution.
I'm from Korea, and people often flag my comments as 'GEN AI' I really don't care about the reports. It just happens because non-native speakers tend to rely on the same formal dictionary words that LLMs use. Regardless of that, here is my take: the extreme widening of wealth inequality is a serious systemic issue
I wonder if there will come a time where being conservative is seen as being on the side of the working class, the poor, and the disadvantaged, because inequality is so far gone that any change to the system is too likely to be exploited by the ruling class/the rich and make things worse.
If you mean that the Church has incorporated ethical systems into its teachings, then I'd agree, but it would also be true of any other religion.
But if you mean that ethics came from orthodox Christianity, or is predicated on the existence of Christ, I'd have to ask to elaborate, though I'm sure I misunderstand.
Virtue ethics were developed by Plato, arguably Kantian and utilitarian systems attenpt to come to ethics through reason and don't mention religion.
The world would be better long-term if we chise tonfund open models instead however.
If you think short-term and only about yourself, paying for SOTA regardless of how many military contracts the lab has is the best thing, but paying for open models is both better ethically, and for a future where AI belongs to everyone and not just to Altman et al.
Your understanding of history, here and downthread, is fascinatingly selective, and, as far as the historical consensus goes, very mistaken.
The Dark Ages refer specifically to Western/Central Europe, so without Byzantium. Byzantium and the Islamic kingdoms were very much thriving, intellectually and culturally, in that period.
Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were multiple, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to infighting, to poverty, and to religion.
From your comments elsewhere however I understand you simply have a very caricatural view of Muslims and use them as a historical scapegoat.
Sorry. Should have also added various Germanic tribes to the list of invaders as well.
> Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were multiple, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to infighting, to poverty, and to religion.
The fall of the western Roman Empire was literally because of invaders (the Goths and Vandals I forgot to initially mention), the infighting was to fill the void and the poverty also related to that as well as constant Viking raids. Literally half the west (Spain) conquered by Muslims for 700 years. Religion not a factor, the Eastern Roman empire was also Christian and stayed rich until it also fell to invaders.
> From your comments elsewhere however I understand you simply have a very caricatural view of Muslims and use them as a historical scapegoat.
Did they not invade the area that is today Spain and France during the "dark" ages? Did they not invade the Byzantine empire (now referring to the other thread)? This is literal history.
Indeed, interesting idea, but better seen as a far fetched thought experiment. It seems to capture the attention of hackers however, gets posted here every so often.
It's quite sad that you're feeling pride largely for your ability to write a prompt, and it's sadder that you're being snarky with someone who expects more from HN users.
Your behaviour is not affecting the HN community in a positive way.
My take is leftist (and I don't mean American liberal), anti-authoritarian, anti-imperialist, anti-genocide, and I don't think there's any difference of motivation and intention in the US. The "bad" group voters (D or R) feel they're protecting the poor, the kids, the families, etc., while the other was attempting to undermine democracy.
To talk only of speech, the Democrats were in charge when the demonisation and criminalisation of anti-genocide protests started in earnest, they were in charge when TikTok was banned for Israel, they were enthusiastically in charge when cancelling/censoring/fining for "hate-speech" (== whatever the gov wants it to be) became a legal gray area (and was then adopted by liberals the world over, see UK). Every other problem the Rs are criticised for (war, corruption, poverty, genocide!!!) was started/facilitated/ignored by the Ds, but people forget it instantly. Except, of course, paying lip service to identity politics.
I have no reason to believe the world would have been much different today had Democrats stayed in power. Look at how the "leftest" Dems vote. Actually, criticising the US as a leftist would have been harder: you'd be instantly viewed as a Nazi.
Both groups are sides of the same coin when it comes to keeping power and subjugating others to it, more or less violently.
Edit: to avoid posting empty criticism, what I mean is that to find a left party, or a party actually attempting to make life better for the poor and disenfranchised and not wanting to kill those who happen to be located near oil and Israel, you have to look away from the Rs and the Ds.
reply