top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

elected officials stock trading

  • source
  • Lobbying; at least in its current form. Corporations being treated as people when it benefits them, but not when it would hurt them. Executives not being held legally accountable for the harm they inflict. SJC-Legalized bribery (as β€œspeech”). HOAs. The Bail system. Legislatures redistricting themselves. Racial profiling. ICE. For-Profit prisons. For-Profit Healthcare. Destroying our ecosystem for profit.

  • source
  • [–] 55 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Attempting to mislead a person for financial gain.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So basically all ads... I agree

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Haha. Yep. I was going for subtle. :) I think ads that didn't mislead wouldn't be so bad. I do want to know about interesting new products... I just want to be able to trust the info. And choose when I see them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • I believe, though I could be wrong, that for a person to be penalized for fraud, someone has to have suffer damages.

    I think it should be illegal to simply mislead for financial gain. Think ads that intentionally exaggerate thier products, influencers who will claim to love some product and use it all the time, when they have never even tried it. And media that puts such a heavy spin on things that in court they claim that no reasonable person would have believed what they are saying as a defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago

    "ask me later" on phone apps. No means no!

  • source
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Fixed prices for fines. These should be based on a fixed percentage, not fixed dollar amount, of a persons overall wealth. None of this bullshit that can bankrupt a poor person but be the price of admission for the rich.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 70 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    Being cruel to other people by hiding behind some power imbalance.

    I don't want to live in a society where the consequence for this behavior is a meaningless fine.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] [S] 30 points 1 year ago*

    Is this not murder? There's no way he didn't contribute to her death even if she was already terminally ill. Stabbing a terminally ill person is murder, putting a newborn baby on the street under the guise of "it's in my property and it's not my kid" is murder, why isn't this? At least criminal negligence no?

    Also, is Nanimo doing okay? Like, just in general, but is the housing situation as bad as Vancouver?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (20 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    Tell you what, you provide me a non-AI painting remaking of the "O brother what art thou" film post
    with the characters replaces with Luigi Mangionne and the word brother changed to Luigi.
    And I will put it in my post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Have you never seen a meme? You don't have to bust out the oil paints, in the amount of time you've already spent defending this slop you could have clumsily pasted his cutout head onto all six positions. The rough quality can be part of the humor.

    I bet your chatbot can explain this and other aspects of human behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Just don't dump AI spam everywhere πŸ€·β€β™‚οΈ

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    How about you keep your sentiments to yourself

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The funny thing is, I could copy the AI's work, but I couldn't create it from scratch because I wouldn't know what it should look like without looking at it, so it would still be using AI anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    yeah, looks like I"m going to have to lie to everyone about using AI int he future because you people are becoming insufferable
    I just want to make it clear that I'm not going to feel bad about it, lying to your face about it and I'm going to have a lot of fun doing it.
    Good job smartypants

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Having wealth over 1000 times the median family income.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'd prefer it was simply prevented via policy rather than punished if breached.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I would prefer a mixed system. All wealth over 1000x the median household income taxed at 100%. So no one should have a fortune larger than that, a number that would be approximately $80 million today. But if you secretly gather a fortune much larger than that? If you somehow secretly amass a fortune 10,000x the median household income? At that point I would apply severe criminal penalties, like a mandatory minimum 20 year sentence. I don't want to throw the book at someone just because they accidentally let their fortune grow a bit beyond the limit. But if you're a whole order of magnitude above it? Then that's when severe criminal penalties should apply. At some point your wealth becomes so large that you personally become a threat to national security. Amassing a fortune in the billions should be treated like a private citizen trying to build their own nuclear bomb. No one should have that much power, and we should treat both the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I like the 1000x threshold because that is approximately the maximum possible fortune one can amass in one's lifetime off of ordinary salary work and extreme frugality.

    1000x the median income would be about $80 million. Consider the highest-earning non-executive salaried employees - people who spend years in school in very challenging fields. People like neurosurgeons. Imagine if there was a couple composed of two neurosurgeons, and they earn very good salaries. They're also so frugal that they spend basically nothing. You have a pair of neurosurgeons literally sleeping on the sidewalk out front of the hospital. They live like that, and they invest and save every penny they can. The highest salaried incomes combined with pathological frugality.

    Even if they did all of that. Even if two highly educated workers lived off nothing and saved everything, even then those people would still struggle to earn, over their whole life, a fortune that exceeded 1000x the median household income.

    Such a system allows for a capitalism that actually does live up to the marketing. You're allowed to earn a fortune as large as your own labor and skills will allow. However, the only way to obtain a fortune larger than this is to get into the business of labor arbitrage - hiring other people and harnessing the surplus of their labor. I want people to be able to earn as much money from the sweat of their own brow as they can. But I don't want people to be able to hoard strategically dangerous fortunes by exploiting the labor of others. And 1000x the median household income is a nice even number that's easy to explain to people and that achieves this goal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 112 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Kind of pathetic how we still have to solve the issue of cutting up baby dicks as ritual.

    Egypt's worse; they still cut off the clits of preteen girls as ritual.

    Jews and Egyptians aren't even trying to hide it. They do it specifically to reduce the sensitivity of sexual organs.

    Christians are the useful idiots (as always) who have been duped into thinking it's for 'medical' or 'aesthetic' purposes. In all honesty, Christians cut up the dicks of their kids because the dad's dick was cut up for him and he doesn't want to admit there's something wrong with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Christians don't do it. Americans do it. And they did it for the same explicit reason as the others thanks to the psycho weirdo Kellogg of the cereal fame to try to prevent masturbation, and sexual pleasure.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    You're gonna love learning about a certain priestly duty at said events. Clue: it involves the priest's mouth. 🀒

    Oh, I'm sorry, downvoters. I misspoke. It's "rabbi", not "priest". Oops.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Maybe in some cultures, but that’s not the norm. It was always just the doctor and his assistant. Honestly, it’s distressing to observe, so no parents or anyone else were allowed to be in the room. *I was a medical assistant for a gyno who did circumcisions during mom’s postpartum check up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Private financing of political campaigns, lobbying, billionaire tax evasion, corporate personhood, corporate tax evasion, wealth over 100 million, private equity in housing or healthcare, employment dependent health insurance, misinformation presented as news, not enforcing laws on the wealthy, corporate subsidies, big farm subsidies(small community farms only), gerrymandering, for profit prisons and felons running for office.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 66 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Companies reporting price increases as "adjusting for inflation" when the price hike does not match inflation should have the entire C-suite going to the gulag. We need to unironically do what China does with its rich, terrorize them and make them walk on eggshells and hand out ridiculously harsh punishments to management when a business commits a crime.

    Also, campaign promises made by politicians running for office should be legally binding. If something they said would happen did not happen, they should be tried for treason and the burden should be on them to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they tried everything they possibly could to keep the promise but forces they could not possibly overcome prevented them from succeeding. Maybe then they'll only promise things they actually intend to do.

  • source
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago

    Willful violations of the Constitution. Right now, elected officials can brazenly disregard the Constitution and the worst that happens is they are told not to do that again in the future, pretty please.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago
    [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Leaving a shopping cart in a parking space instead of bringing it back to the cart shelter.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Political lobbying and lifetime politicians.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Generally think mandatory minimums are unjust, but political corruption. It's wrong per se but also has downstream negative effects on society.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Lying as a politician.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    Maybe you shouldn't be chomping at the bit to kidnap people and lock them in cages.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    Advertising.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    earning more than 360,000 usd per year.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Anytbing that annoys me personally.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    A lot of very important things have already been suggested and I agree with most. I won't just re-state what others have said, instead I'll suggest a pet peeve of mine.

    People who say "I love that for you". It's like nails on a chalkboard to me, it's always said in such a condescending and disingenuous way by every person I've ever heard say it, I just can't stand hearing it now.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Telling any support staff individual

    "It just says error."

    Punishment compounded based upon the degree of detailed information you simply decided to not bother reading before seeking assistance.

    Lol

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No, it should be punishable to build a system that just says "error" when it fails.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    And just like that, Microsoft goes straight to jail LMAO.

    But oh yeah, I've seen those. Those would also be included under this law! We can have both! Lol

    Seriously though, I'm talking specifically when any little thing that stops someone from doing what they're doing and it'll usually say "Hey, this is why it's not working. Please tell someone this message."

    "...it just says error?"

    Hurt my soul. I'm so done with that nonsense lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Kittenhood. The minimum sentence: lifetime of cuddling, free food and play.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Advertising, political parties and religions. All of them.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Noise making that disrupts other people's tranquility.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Disturbing the peace isn't illegal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The people using speaker on transit, or blasting external speakers while hiking through otherwise perfectly good woods… are disturbing the peace, sure. So are the college kids two floors up when they’re pre-gaming at 9pm. But the police would not take any of these calls seriously, unless the OP rule/law were in place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I’ll defend people playing music through speakers in the woods…. It’s the fucking woods. It’s away from civilization. You’ll be away from them shortly. It’s fiiiiine. It’s not like you’re captive on public transportation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Neighbors with dogs that bark all the time.

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Is calling a MTF transperson a man considered 'transphobia' in your mind?

    Do you honestly believe people should be imprisoned for it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Intentionally and knowingly calling a MTF trans person a man is transphobia. Dunno about jail, but I'd be down to have legally enforced punishment for that. To be fair, that should probably cover all cases of (intentionally and knowingly) misgendering people, in a similar fashion to defamation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Dang. Thanks for being honest, but I vehemently disagree with you.

    People should be allowed to call others what they want. It's up to us to be mature enough to handle people calling us things we don't like.

    You should know that advocating for legal repercussions here drives people away from the cause.

    Edit: It's sad how many of you want to control others' speech like this, but I guess it just goes to show that we're not really on the same side.

    If a politician is running a platform of pushing legal penalties for calling people things they don't like, I will make sure to vote against them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They are allowed to be scared of trans people, no projecting it though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • Not raising your children.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    capitalist relations

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί