I didn’t downvote. But I didn’t upvote either.

It’s just not really a good meme at all, so it’s going to get downvotes. That’s what downvotes are for.

The more unusual circumstance is that it got so many upvotes despite being a crappy meme. This clearly indicates that we have a lot of Lemmy users who support trans youth. Good for us, that makes me glad. Still not good content for this particular community imho, so I didn’t upvote.

It’s not an entertaining meme

Do we have yous/youse? According to my understanding that’s technically not a real word yet, it’s slang.

2nd person singular used to be thou/thee back in the middle ages, but it all eventually melded into you.

I feel like y’all is the newer American version of 2nd person plural, while yous/youse/yinz are the non-American English counterparts.

I have always used you guys in a gender neutral manner historically, but people occasionally got offended by that. So I started using y’all several years ago and it’s been going pretty good. Although I did initially spell it like ya’ll until someone corrected me on reddit 😅

My point is that technically you are still making decisions about what to do with some odors body parts without consent, as they can no longer consent. Is there really a difference?

That’s a good point, you’re right.

That’s interesting about the eyes, I’m honestly not sure what to say about that.

Yeah most of the ones in the second list at least had a couple of notable things about them that kept them off the first list. I was hoping people with local experience would chime in if they had reason to dispute my rankings; I’m sure there’s some cool aspects of these cities that I might not be aware of.

Carson City is nearby Lake Tahoe which is pretty awesome. Lansing is actually a decent sized city and has Michigan State University. Topeka is reasonably close to KC, and presumably has some other notable features 😅

Montgomery and Jackson are pretty dire but there’s not really any better cities/options in Alabama or Mississippi, so I gave them an A for effort.

Wow, good source. 82% donor rate for the opt-out group versus 79% for the forced-choice is a smaller difference than I would have guessed.

I’m pretty sure people do make their wishes clear regarding their funeral preparations. You can put that kind of stuff in your last will and I would assume it holds some legal weight.

I actually agree that organ donation should be opt-out, but there is an unavoidable argument against that. Namely, the fact that people have the right to opt-out at all implies that you have a responsibility to verify their informed consent before enrolling them in the procedure. At least, that would be the conventional wisdom according to the field of medical ethics.

There’s honestly a lot of lame state capitals in the US, Europeans might be surprised. In Europe the national capital of each country is typically the biggest and most cosmopolitan city. This is not the case when it comes to state capitals in the US. Several of the most boring ones (Montpelier, Augusta, Pierre) have already been mentioned, so I’ll just add a few others.

Indubitably Boring

• Frankfort, Kentucky
• Jefferson City, Missouri
• Helena, Montana
• Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Slightly Less Boring (honorable mentions)

• Carson City, Nevada
• Jackson, Mississippi
• Topeka, Kansas
• Olympia, Washington
• Lansing, Michigan
• Salem, Oregon
• Trenton, New Jersey
• Montgomery, Alabama
• Springfield, Illinois
• Tallahassee, Florida
• Concord, New Hampshire

That sounds promising, I think you’re right that it would be a significant improvement in donor rates over the opt-in system.

I agree, but it raises an interesting argument regarding the definition of consent. I don’t necessarily believe in free will so I like to mention it in situations where you can easily see that people are more accurately described as reacting to their environment than making any kind of conscious choice.

Simply by changing from opt-in to opt-out, you mostly reverse the observed behavior of a population. Lots of applications for this sort of thinking, like voting for instance.

I think it’s interesting to ask whether people in the opt-out countries are really consenting. Can you really say someone has consented if you never actually made the request?

I would estimate

15% <25

60% 25-40

25% 40+

Y’all be showing your age sometimes 😅

It doesn’t need to be the answer. It just needs to be an answer for certain use cases. Both platforms can easily coexist. That’s the beauty of federation.

This is unfortunate. Have you looked into setting up some kind of sign-up filter or automod to deal with the spammers?

Previous comments are spot on.

One thing I would add is that Lemmy is a particularly sensitive case, because we really want to encourage activity and growth at this stage. It pains me when communities without much activity get a meme post or something that makes it into /all and the mods remove it for being off-topic.

Overly strict moderation is one of the fastest ways to drive people away from a platform. Just follow your natural instincts and let people post what they want as long as it’s not harming anyone.

Sheesh guys, at least act like you’ve been there before. Bad look, but not unexpected considering the culprits

The set of environmental conditions is different in each country, and indeed for each individual human. The level of technological advancement only comprises a small piece of that picture.

Because of the recent rapid technological advances in the past century, essentially every society worldwide is struggling to adapt to the new technological landscape. But due to all of the other contributing factors, the struggle is slightly different for everyone.

Just looking at the average work hours is a miniscule people of the puzzle. How much money are people making in exchange for their time? Do they have to pay for Healthcare? What types of jobs are most common? What is the historical context of the population that has led them to this point? Were they working more or less 100 years ago? Did they have more wealth 100 years ago? What is the current rate of mental illness and disability? What is the historical and current prevalence of religion?

You could continue with questions in this vein more or less infinitely. And the answer to each question would vary substantially depending on the nation/community/individual that you chose to focus on. And each answer would potentially have an impact when trying to analyze how the current culture came about.

To answer your single hypothetical question, I think one of the primary contributing factors to the reduced working hours for many wealthy western European countries when compared to the US is the relative level of financial and social inequality along with the taxation rate. For France et all, the tax rate is significantly higher and the level of social support is correspondingly higher.

This reduces some of the necessity of working more hours, because the variability of income is reduced. If low-income people still make enough money and have enough benefits to make a decent life, they don’t need to work so many hours just to survive. Also, high-income people will have a reduced incentive to work so many hours because the overall financial benefit is relatively smaller when compared to the US where you can avoid taxation to a much greater extent.

Yeah sure, I can get on board with that. I just wrote a great 500 word response that I canceled accidentally. Fml I’m too tired, I’ll try to give a quick summary.

Basically, by framing it as a cultural issue that hinges on the decisions of individuals to reject the dominant culture, you’re putting the focus in the wrong direction. You’re essentially trying to change human nature, instead of trying to change the specific conditions that cause humans to behave this way at this specific point in time. Fighting aggressively against the entrenched cultural realities is brave but futile.

Instead of focusing on dismantling the culture that is already firmly in place, you need to change the conditions for future generations so they can have the opportunity to develop less problematic cultures. In order to do that, you need to analyze the dominant culture and understand it, but you don’t necessarily need to waste all your energy fighting its manifestations. Instead, you simply try to create spaces where people can construct subcultures which are protected from the dominant culture. Eventually, if the newer cultures prove to be elegant solutions to universal human problems, they will inevitably take over.

But again, I understand and agree with what you’re saying. It just only applies to a handful of people who are inherently revolutionary in mindset. For the vast majority of humans, they don’t have the ability to consciously and independently reject and disentangle from the dominant culture. Thus, the ultimate solution lies in altering the material conditions of society such that the dominant culture begins to change from the inside out.

Have you considered that culture is merely the collective reaction of a group of humans to a given set of environmental conditions? I don’t disagree with you, but you’re needlessly simplifying the problem.

You’re willing to work a job that is an hour’s drive away because you choose to take the job.

Why did I choose to take the job? One major reason is that I have an automobile. If I didn’t have the automobile, I wouldn’t have been able to take the job. Culture comes about as a result of a series of incentives and motivations that shape human decisions. Change the access to technology, and you would change the culture.

You seem to believe that a solution will come from people simply choosing not to do certain things. This is partially true, but its more accurate to recognize that you need to first create the material conditions that enable people to actually have a viable choice.

It is not the technology that is the problem in this case.

It’s the combination of the technology and the social structures that continually reproduce the culture that you’re complaining about. If you think the culture is going to magically change without altering the material conditions first, you’re gonna have a bad time.

And this goes on and on and back and forth for 90 or so minutes until the movie just sort of… ends.