this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
84 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

1462 readers
75 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hyphlosion@lemm.ee 7 points 6 days ago (6 children)

I believe in the possibility of bigfoot being real.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Ah, you must be a anarcho-monarchist anti-kakistocrat, are famed for their disbelief of bigfoot.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Lessee... I suppose my hottest take is that no lives are sacred. I believe that human expansion into more 'wild' domains is a mistake and that national and state parks' availability should be limited (geographically - you may not venture into the Deep Parks). This probably borders on some vaguely eco-fascy beliefs, and I recognize human's inexorable curiousity and desire to explore, but you will never find me mourning a human victim of a wild animal.

[–] crimsonpoodle@pawb.social 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

We can disagree a bit about the sacredness of life but I think we agree about oreseving nature. Yet I think national parks are both a good and a practical necessity. If the general public can’t get a taste of wilderness they will not value it, and will not protest its demise. So it’s a balancing actβ€” in a perfect world sure have some very large untouched reserves, but if you care about any wilderness surviving then national parks are a must imho.

Just so. The periphery of the parks may be visited- a shared border between worlds where the most intrepid of both may briefly meet, but just as bears and raccoons are driven out of suburbs, so too should people be driven from the deeper parks.

As for the sanctity of life, it's more of a balancing in my eyes. No life should be valued so as to cause undue stress to survivors. But I suppose my rather callous attitude is anathema to most.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Does that also apply to hypothetical martian settlements? If people ever technically managed to live on mars.

There's definitely no higher life on mars (or we would have already found it), and it's also unlikely that there's any life at all - not even microbial life (due to an absence of liquid water on the surface).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mrodri89@lemmy.zip 6 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Im left leaning on many social issues but pronouns was never a necessary social construct hill we needed to die on.

I think that useless fight got us the full hard swing to the right.

Especially because you shouldn't give a fuck about how people perceive you. You should be whoever you are and not care about labels.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] vfreire85@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 days ago (3 children)
  • permanent revolution;
  • that parties should be democratic institutions;
  • that burocratization leads to deformed proletarian states.
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] random@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm anarchist left, but I do think every human should have the right to defend themself and thereforce should be able to bear arms

I'm not american if anyone's gonna ask

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Is that an uncommon stance among Anarchists?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago (7 children)

I lean pretty hard left who is also pro death-penalty (IN VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES)

  • If the case has absolutely been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • All appeals have been exhausted.

  • Proof is absolutely undeniable.

  • Guilty party shows no remorse.

  • Crime is suffiently heinous (mass murder, child killing, serial killers, etc...)

  • A legitimate psychiatric board has deemed that there is little to no chance at rehabilitation nor does the guilty party show any inclination to want to rehabilitate.

if ALL those things are true, (plus some that I haven't even considered) then I would rather execute them than pay for their living expenses for the rest of their natural life, or worse see them released at the end of their sentance absolutely knowing that they'll do it again.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί