You're sort of attacking a straw man here - just because someone is against the war on drugs doesn't mean they are for indiscriminate legalization. The biggest criticisms of the war on drugs in this thread are that it A) attacks people who are no threat to anyone else or themselves (e.g., cannibas and psychedelic users, "responsible" users in general) because of public misconceptions of these drugs pushed by the powers that be, and that B) it attacks people who are very much in need of help, such as addicts of more dangerous/addictive drugs, by punishing them for what is effectively a disease.
Opinions of HN users may vary on how exactly to fix these problems, but I think it's safe to say that neither the system we have now (villainizing and condemning users) nor complete and total deregulation are solutions.
Money is just a stand-in for resources and labor, and if automation makes labor very very cheap, the rich will only need the natural resources the poor sit on, not anything from the poor themselves.
Alleged poor? When machines are cheaper than humans for any given task (as a result of both AI and robotic improvements) human beings will be destitute except for any ownership of resources they already have and can defend.
That means the vast majority of people will have no means of income or resources, unless they appropriate the use land or resources they don't own in a shadow economy.
But the appropriation of resources is not likely to be perceived positively by those that own the resources, given that ownership is the only thing separating the rich from the destitute.
Why does "disabled" have the connotation of being unable to be productive, and the phrase "people with disabilities" not? Surely, if we use the phrase "people with disabilities" as we would have used "disabled", it will gain similar connotations, no?
Sorry if i come off as confrontational, I'm legitimately curious
I believe the preference is due to "disabled person" has the connotation of "a person who is disabled", where "disabled" is an essential property of the person, while "person with disabilities" has the connotation where the disability is not essential to the person's definition: it's just one aspect of the person.
I'm going to assume good faith and, in my very humble opinion, you are absolutely correct. If it's got the word disabled in it it has the same connotations.
You. Are. Broken.
Refer to all disabled people by their chosen name if you know it, otherwise ask them and then work around any logistical problems as they come up and as they are referred to you by the disabled person. Do not assume anything and do not push a wheelchair without asking and/or being asked. Even if a disabled person is lying on the ground, they will ask if they need help.
Rules to live by able-bodied people, rules to live by!
Sort of like how bitcoin uses hashes to demonstrate value, things like diamonds and dyes are a social "proof-of-work" - meaningful only because the cost they imply.
I don't know if it was necessarily that they "couldn't be bothered to show up and vote". My father decided not to vote on the grounds that he couldn't justify voting for either major candidate, and many other people who voted for Obama in the previous election cycle probably felt the same way.
What is the difference between "couldn't justify" and "couldn't be bothered to show up"? Sounds like they just want to shift the blame to the candidates rather than themselves and their own inaction. If they genuinely think both candidates are equally fit, then not voting makes sense. If they genuinely think both candidates are equally unfit, then voting isn't enough, they have to become politically active to convince people to vote for a 3rd candidate. Merely voting for a 3rd candidate without creating ground swell is likewise almost always, 9 times out of 10, punished by the American political system.
Most likely if we had compulsory voting in this country, most of the plurality, who did not show up to vote, would not have voted for Trump. It may have been a scant amount, but very clearly the more eligible voters vote, it favors Democrat candidates.
