dzsimbo

I guess if we can establish a protected class, it could deter violence. While I am the furthest thing from an Italian lawyer as possible, I highly doubt that there aren't a handful of laws already in place that couldn't be enforced to combat violence against women.

This could be a solid step in the right direction and enough to hand out harsher sentences where the motives are clearly misogynistic in nature.

Maybe I'm a bit in over my head, as I do have to think about the terminology, and many things come through fuzzy, to say it best. I just can't shake the notion that at best this is only a loaded signaling, at worst another loophole to somehow horrificly abuse.

We have yet to see how this makes things better. If I were having an especially sceptic day, I'd just say this is a propaganda play (y'know, with women's day around the corner). 'Meloni is standing up for the weak' - is the message I am getting.

If we can take it at face value, we can pocket the win. But having a gender-related rule created by a right-wing politician that hints at pushing conservative points makes me wary.

Luckily it doesn't really matter what I believe, because there will be metrics on the matter. I do hope this new law helps curb violence. If nothing else, it's a PSA that revenge porn is bad, which is way better than not talking about it.

Don't fret it, Trump probably just wants in on the famous Hungarian-Uzbekistanian potato research on ground floor.

I am pretty sure there is no separate pipeline. We are landlocked and EU members with the common market. This is just lip service.

While domestic violence needs to be curbed, this somehow feels like a step back for feminism. Just the word itself.

The bill could emphasize domestic violence and the rape/murders. Mostly women are the victims, so they could have kept this ungendered. The only reason I see to specify femicide is because women are generally weaker and cannot defend themselves as well (please correct me if I'm wrong, as this seems to be the problematic part).

If it works, sure, let's do it. I want people to be able to walk on the street confidently. It just feels like a red flag.

It was going downhill the same way reddit did after the v4 exodus. There was fun to be had there as well.

Damn dotcom bubble. Can't have anything nice around.

The system definitely encourages and rewards explotation, but why do people do it at all? Will this behaviour stop if we penalize it? Or just gently teach the children after the bloody revolution?

How do we get past the notion of power corrupting people? All I'm arguing is that communism is not an outright solution for society.

I promise to read up on dialectic materialism, but the end of link you sent mentions getting a gun. That's just bad advice.

I genuinely don't know what you mean by Communism requiring everyone to "act in good faith."

What if someone doesn't adhere to 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'? We can go and imagine a real utopia, but there are very real ways it can go wrong and the system will have trouble handling it.

The main thing I am arguing though, is that communism doesn't really account for imperfect behaviour. At the moment, no one system does.

The problem wasn't with communism. It is a great ideal that we can keep in a back pocket comes time to build something new.

I still feel the crux of our problem is human behaviour. I know democracy isn't really working out for us, but it seems to be the hardest system to hack. Of course it's not impossible as seen in the US (and Hungary, for an interesting example), but it's definitely harder to buy up and/or convince a majority.

We definitely have to find something better, but my main problem with (my imagined) communistic ideal is that almost every actor needs to be good faith in it, otherwise it dystopes.

I still feel that if they are doing a good job and not harrassing people at work, they deserve the money. The way you put it makes me feel like I am talking about funding the third reich.

Even if they are chanelling all the funds into an active genocidal army, I stand to argue the problem is not with me paying the developer. There are definitely nuances we can get into, like the 'enabler' character from the 12 steps lore. I am very much not dying on this hill, I might be wrong.

I see the thin line I am dancing on in this argument. Having bigot opinions go unchallenged on large platforms leads to problems.

I wouldn't want to work with someone who can barely wait to kill me and take over the company because of something I was born with as soon he gets the green light from society. But is this what we are talking about?

We can't let the hate take over, but I don't see the solution in cutting off blood circulation to an uncooperating limb. One can argue that nazism is a gangrenous infection, but I personally think it's a symptom of great discontent and a narrow perspective. Maybe I'm just slow to draw the same conclusions everyone else has from the paradox of tolerance.

Hey, I'm coming from a heavily utilitarian view, so please allow for that in my question.

Let's say there is a pro coder who is amazing at debugging, but is incredibly antisemitic. They have little to no interactions with colleagues and are keeping the hate to the appropriate boards (X, I believe it's called nowadays). Should we contract his work and apply it where applicable?