That’s quite the clever tactic. Just throw together a “salad” of an argument — so incoherent and lacking in logic that no one can make sense of it. Then say, “if you can’t understand it, you’re proving my point.” Win? Somehow?

I think suicide should be legal for all ages. If one didn’t ask to be born, why should one have to wait many many years to exit?

And while I am of the opinion that suicide should be legal and freely provided, mental health (and all other forms of health) should also be provided freely.

I think this is the one thing that is impossible to defend. In my opinion, not being vegan is impossible to justify, on ethical and moral grounds. And I am not vegan currently (I was in the past).

I think if people had to pay for every software package, it would get very expensive, very fast. I am against having to pay for FLOSS. I am, however, of the opinion that FLOSS devs should be paid. Professional use should pay them, and big companies using FLOSS packages should pay the devs of said packages a substantial amount. Facebook uses something free? No way, you will pay.

Basic Income would also help FLOSS.

I am lost at your comment. Seems like a word salad in which you say absolutely nothing of substance.

What does being an organ donor have to do with capitalism, or with the western society? And what does it have to do with “humans as physical entities in terms of the value they create”? What are you talking about?

I’m opposed to your perspective because it creates the precedent for Westerners to continue rationalizing the dehumanization of people under the safety umbrella of good capitalist business practices.

What???

Why? But why are you not an organ donnor and why would your wishes even matter? You will be death. Your organs can either decompose in the dirt, or help save a life and reduce suffering. Why do you want “someone in your court” to decide?

It is, indeed, very selfish of you. Why?

Your takes are way too mild guys… Yet again, I will go even further:

I am an antinatalist:

• Having kids is unethical in all cases. It is always an egocentric act. You may have many reasons to have kids, but none are for the good of the child. It cannot be, since the child does not exist yet. Hence, it is egotistical.

It is always better to not exist.

“Better never to have been”, by Benatar, should be mandatory reading.

I agree with you, but I go even further. I think suicide should be legal, in all cases. There should be suicide booths that provide a humane, painless dead, for free use by whoever wants to kill oneself. And I am of the opinion that this would improve society. If the “slaves” of today’s society had an easy way out, perhaps the CEOs and the billionaires would have to start paying living wages and wouldn’t be able to take advantage of people and ruin the environment/society.

And another interesting scenario would be: You kill a CEO, run to a suicide booth, kill yourself.

This, of course, will never happen because the people at the top would never let it happen. And the fact that the people at the top are against it, is enough proof, imo, that this would be a net gain for society/humanity. Something that endangers the top is good. Fuck them.

I, also, am against the death penalty. I don’t trust anyone with that job. However, at the same time, I also believe some people should be killed. People who gravely endangered humanity and caused immense suffering to everyone who exists and will exist, for example, pro-capitalist and pro-modern-slavery people such as Elon Musk. Or the guys from the Volkswagen emissions scandal. People like those should not exist.

That tweet is so weird. He hates several groups of people (trans, etc), can’t they hate him back? He never physically hurt anyone? Well, no one has physically hurt him as well. So far, quid pro quo…?

My claim is not that Lemmy should attract every single person. However, it does need to attract many many people. Here is why:

I think we all want to open a post about astronomy and read “Astronomer here. Here is what this post is saying:”. Or read a post about nutrition and have someone with actual nutrition knowledge talk about the topic at hand. Perhaps even the author of the paper?

Do you want a random guy who installed arch-linux commentating (probably a shitty meme) on a highly specialized topic about math? Or do you want Terence Tao leaving his thoughts? I want the later. In order to have that, Lemmy needs to be welcoming to everyone and not just to people who know how to install Arch.

I use arch btw.

Some people, yes. But the person that wants something that “just works” probably doesn’t feel like searching for all the privacy communities. He/She does not want to have to search which one is the most active, which one has the best rules, etc etc. That point makes it a negative. My point is that reducing friction of usage is a good thing, for growing communities at least, such as lemmy.

And just to be clear, I am the most pro-decentralization person you will ever find. I am not against lemmy. I hate reddit and what it stands for.

I think there are advances and disadvantages to this. Decentralization is definitely an advantage, however, having the same community split between many instances splits the community and the conversations and makes finding and interacting with the community much harder. This wouldn’t be much of a problem on a very big userbase (such as reddit), but on a smaller userbase (such as lemmy), it does constitute a problem in my view.

Having said that, there are probably some UI/UX tricks that could be done to improve this sort of thing. For example, when subscribing to a “privacy” community, there could be a suggestions box/pop-up/whatever showing other privacy communities. Perhaps a graph of communities.