Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)F
Posts
5
Comments
113
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Okay, and what would "incredibly enforcing it" look like in your opinion?

    You could establish longer criminal sentences. But longer sentences generally don't have a higher deterent effect and you just end up with people who have been isolated from society longer or are harder to integrate.

    You could make it easier to arrest people/have criminal proceedings, but that will also mean more innocent people will be subjected to harsh measures and grow disdainful of the police.

    You could increase police presence in general. But that is also likely to harbour mistrust and have more people subject to unfair scrutiny and would probably to little to prevent the crimes we are talking about here.

    And mind you, all these measures will be much more likely to target migrants who already might have a not too rosy view of law enforcement and general society, so you're always risking exacerbating the same societal issues that are also contributing to the crimes.

    So what exactly would you suggest?

  • Because it rarely really solves the actual problem while creating a lot of spill on damage and possibly furthering violence. See the US war on drugs or Duterte's mass executions in the Philippines for very drastic examples.

  • They're easier to build than internal combustion engine cars. But that doesn't mean they're easy to build in general.

  • easy to build technology

    Um, what?

  • Yes, it's an improvement to prior regulation and a step back from what they initially set out to do.

  • So what would you call the backpedalling on the laws on new heaters and energy efficiency of new buildings then? Or the abolishment if sector goals?

  • Yeah, it still seems a weird place to complain about it when this is actually a measure of moving the goalposts closer (2030 is certainly less than 10-20 years,) while other industrial nations like the UK and Germany are even backsliding.

    I think it's totally fair to criticize that it isn't enough, because it isn't. I just don't see how engaging in hyperbolic scenarios and defeatism is supposed to help anything. I think it's also okay to acknowledge when something is at least moving in a slightly less shit direction and use that as a source of encouragment to turn things around further, instead of just saying "well, this is shit".

  • Damn Macron couldn't even be bothered to invent a time machine. 😡

  • So basically any time a group of politicians decide they don't like the laws then they don't have to follow them and can do whatever they want? Big Trump supporter huh?

    I didn't say anything like that and I don't think it's that hard to get my point. There's a difference between any random law and laws that obstruct democratic self-determination or violate human rights. I'll engage with the rest of your comment if you take back your dumb strawmanning and calling me a Trump supporter for no good reason. I think any discussion should be based on a basic commitment to sincerity.

  • An independence vote should maybe not just be a simple majority, I think at least more than 2/3 like what is usually required for a change in consitution would make sense. But other than that, you're just describing how democracy works. Just about no western country is a homogenous group. There are always people of wildly different background and with wildly different views and they often get rules imposed on them they don't like. This is already happening right now. So are you against current countries running democratically as well? You're arguing that a presumed minority of non-independence voting Catalonians will feel disenfranchised, but you're at the same time perfectly fine with the presumed majority of Catalonians feeling disenfranchised right now? How does that make sense? If you're arguing for minimizing disenfranchisement, your point is clearly inconsistent.

    The only way to minimize those frictions for a society that can only function in organized groups is to make the units of self-determination relatively small. So yes, I absolutely think that every geographical region that wants to hold an independence referendum should do so. Why not? There's nothing speaking against that. If your concern is that many people might have rules voted on them they don't like than you should be for each individual's votes counting as much as possible.

    Also, there's nothing saying that if a country goes independent, there can't be some transitional rulesets, where people can potentially switch nationality, lived by mixed rules for a while etc. I absolutely think that in such cases there should be some rulesets in place to ease the transition and give people some choice. But all that only makes sense if we have some consensus about where the majority of a region wants to go. Which Catalonia isn't even allowed to officially find out where they stand and start negotiating about that.

    Maybe it could be gerrymandered to shut up the whining minorities?

    How do you gerrymander a region deciding about its independence? If the regional borders for a referendum are "arbitrarily" drawn (all borders are) in a way that 95%+ or whatever support independence, that just means that you just minimized the amount of people who would feel disenfranchised by that decision, which is what you made your main point of concern. Gerrymandering only can be done (maliciously) when te seats/votes for a plurality of administrative units is determined in a first past the post voting system. None of that has any relevance for or applies to an independence referendum.

  • Also, "If people vote on something, some people will also vote against it and have choices enacted they don't like" isn't a sign of something being anti-democratic. It's how democracy works. So I'm pretty sure that my point is consistent here.

  • The premise of your argument is that all people living in Catalonia consider themselves exclusively Catalonian. In reality some of them don't even consider themselves Catalonian, let alone exclusively Catalonian. What's your answer to them?

    What kinda weird point is that and how is that the premise of my argument? This is exactly why you hold a referendum to find out whether enough people actually support it. I'm arguing for the ability of people to choose their own fate in a democratic manner. Not pro or contra independence.

  • No, it's not a complicated issue. If the constitution/laws don't allow to hold a referendum about it without the uninvolved party having to allow it first, then they're just shit laws in opposition to basic principles of democracy.

  • Fucking weirdos. Let people determine their own fate. That's the essence of democracy.

  • Tja, wären die Tüpis auf dem Schiff mal auf diese Idee gekommen.

  • Indem man z.B. eine eigene Lemmy-Instanz betreibt und automatisch damit zugemüllt wird?

  • Best chance of seeing that implemented would probably be filing an issue on the github page.