• 0 Posts
  • 56 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle

  • MonkRome@lemmy.worldtoMalicious Compliance@lemmy.worldWork from home
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    My sister in law is blind in one eye, but because she has one working eye she has no disability protection as far as I know. She still can’t drive because she has no depth perception and it’s very dangerous. It’s made navigating going to work difficult over the years, often working the same place my brother did so he could drive her. Luckily her current employer works with her and lets her work from home. But a decade ago no one would have dreamed of letting her work from home.


  • None of the things by themselves fully justify “belief” in a religion yet many people claim they are without a true belief in the entire system. It’s the problem with such a vague question. By a narrower definition very few people attending a place of worship are true believers. Someone can believe in god, but not really believe in the rules, and still say they are “religious”. Someone can believe in the rules, but not god, and say the same. I think if you are practicing the religion to some extent then you have a right to call yourself religious if that’s how you view yourself regardless of your true beliefs on god, rules, etc. Cultural impact matters more than we give it credit for.


  • Another big reason is reason number 4

    1. Gives a sense of community and cultural connection that other things don’t quite provide.

    I’ve met a not so inconsequential amount of people in my life that when pressed admitted, they don’t believe in god, don’t believe in the moral teachings, but attend a place of worship because they think there is no replacement for the interwoven community and cultural connection their place of worship provides. Many people simply like the community connection of their root culture. This is especially true in minority groups (black church, synagogue).




  • I don’t doubt anything you are saying, but it’s worth mentioning that (iirc) 80%+ of severe injury and death on a bicycle is caused by motor vehicles, or complications of motor vehicle involvement. People very rarely have severe injury or death on dedicated bike infrastructure. The primary risk on bicycles is motor vehicles. If you remove motor vehicles, there is still risks, but someone might decide that risk is low enough to forgo a helmet. I don’t feel those people should be called stupid for their choice.

    There is considerable evidence that everyone wearing a helmet in a car would save vastly more lives and prevent severe head injury, and yet pretty much no one even considers that as a normal thing to do. The bike helmet thing is therefore just as much a cultural attitude, as it is about safety.

    I still use a helmet, and more importantly, visibility gear, on my bicycle in 100% of my rides. I’ve never worn a bike helmet walking or driving in a car, even though my cousin died from a head injury getting hit by a car while walking and my grandma-in-law died of a head injury in a car…


  • MonkRome@lemmy.worldtoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.worldPros / cons of riding a bike?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    A helmet is only needed if you intend to spend significant time in traffic. Most of the world doesn’t use one.

    The math behind using one is a lot more on the margins than people realize. In order for it to save you, it first has to prevent a head injury, and then prevent one that is in the range of severity that makes it useful. The vast majority of bike injuries won’t fall in that range, they’ll either be related to another part of the body, or in the case of high speed crashes from a car, too severe for a helmet to matter. But helmets do give people a false sense of security. Statistically people ride faster and take more risks with a helmet on. Lastly, again statistically, the visibility gear you put on yourself while riding does more to keep you safe in traffic than a helmet. Lights, reflectors, reflective vest, etc.

    All this to say, the religiosity with which people proselytize helmets is misplaced. I still wear one, but I don’t judge people who choose not to.





  • Neither can actual fascists, at least one is a slower process. What matters is what we do with the time in between elections. I’ll happily vote for a moderate wet fart like Biden so I have 4 more years to educate, 4 more years to inch policy my direction at the local level, 4 more years to work with activists in my community, 4 more years to build bridges of understanding with people I disagree with in the hope for a better future. Giving in to accelerationists just takes away those 4 years entirely, ending any hope for that better future. Soon 70% of these fascists will die of old age, and then maybe we can translate our action and resistance into policy.


  • WE put them there, Biden didn’t end up there because Berkshire Hathaway appointed him, citizens voted for him in the primary, by a larger amount than many on the left admit. You don’t win on leftist issues at the ballot box, the ballot box is where you repair the levee wall so water doesn’t come rushing in. You win on leftist issues every day before and every day after the election. Voting isn’t an act of change, it’s an act of consensus building. If you don’t like where that consensus landed, then the work needs to be done to change minds.




  • Seriously, that was my only comment and now I’m also a rapist according to you. This is something else, I can’t say I’ve ever encountered someone this toxic on Lemmy since I’ve been here. You extrapolated all sorts of things I never said from 2 sentences.

    Not that you are remotely deserving of a respectful response at this point, but I’ll still give you my thoughts:

    I’ve been sexually assaulted and have had people close to me be sexually assaulted and raped. The insinuation that I am a rapist would be personally harmful to me and retraumatizing if I wasn’t aware that you are doing this because you are unable to articulate your opinions on the matter effectively, so you resort to insults. I totally understand the visceral need and desire for vengeance and justice when you or someone close to you is the victim of vile acts. There is someone I grew up acquainted with that if I saw them again in person I would have an intense desire to cause physical pain because of what they did to people close to me. I totally understand the desire for vengeance, and I suspect everyone else on this thread does too.

    With that said, when societies make rules you have to decide what the goal is. Is the goal vengeance and punishment, is the goal a better future for society in general, or is it a little of both. We have the sum total of human experience to look back on, we can see what societies systems of punishment result in better outcomes for society at large. We know what systems of punishment result in recidivism more often, what systems result in rehabilitation more often, and we know what systems perpetuate a cycle of violence that never ends. We don’t rehabilitate criminals and sex offenders for their sake, we rehabilitate them for societies sake. Because we can conclusively show that if systems of punishment make it their goal to rehabilitate instead of get vengeance, it usually breaks the cycle of violence whether it be physical or sexual. You’re basically saying you would prefer vengeance, even if it is at the expense of sexual and physical violence being perpetuated through society generation after generation.

    I strongly suggest you read this article: https://www.firststepalliance.org/post/norway-prison-system-lessons#:~:text=Prisoners in Norway lose their,crime rates in the world.

    Norway has the lowest recidivism rate in the world exactly because the treat their criminals like human beings. Guess who wins, all of the non-criminals that enjoy one of the lowest crime rates in the world.



  • MonkRome@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneRule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Every year you are alive increases your life expectancy. Infant mortality is factored into that 76 years, so are other unnatural causes of death. If you actually live a “normal” life and die of natural causes, 40-45 feels more accurate to me as “middle aged”. Even though 76 is the average, I believe 86 is the peak (mode/most common) age of death. If you think about it that makes sense. 99% of people die before their 92 birthday, so there are only 6 years to fit on that side of the peak but 86 years (far more opportunities to die of unnatural causes) on the other. This is why averages are very misleading. Even though 76 is the average, it’s not when the largest amount of people die.