What would you make illegal cause it annoys you?
Nicking another question from /r/askreddit, cause I think this is an interesting one?
Question: What little thing would you make illegal just because it pisses you off?
Originally asked by: anila001.
So everyone... what would you ban?
Fun bonus question of my own: What would your suggested punishment be for breaking this law?
Question: What little thing would you make illegal just because it pisses you off?
Originally asked by: anila001.
So everyone... what would you ban?
Fun bonus question of my own: What would your suggested punishment be for breaking this law?
0
Tough one, this. I suppose people talking and using their phones in cinemas is a good one, though to be honest that rarely happens to me.
Interestingly enough, limitless campaign donations are defended in the US as a freedom of political speech issue - I believe the Supreme Court ruled on this. I'd also like that to change though.
It easily lets corporations have their way since their the ones with all the money, and the campaigners need/want money to get ****_ done (and in general their just greedy as hell_.) Heck, a former US President, Jimmy Carter once said the US has become an oligarchy, which is pretty accurate really. Here, I actually found where he said that. He said it on an interview in 2015 (watch it here if you want, its just 90 seconds) and they actually reference somewhat what you said as well about the Supreme Court saying about how ∞ donations are all good.
Good find, Thane. Sad, but interesting. It really does seem oligarchical in nature and I don't see that changing in the near future.
Too true. I would say, though, I'm not sure I'd class it as a "little thing" like the question proposes.
Temptation to make a "small loan of a million dollars" joke... Rising...
"IMHO" as a prefix for written forms of communications would suffice.
If asked about the veracity of their statements, they are obligated to provide the sources of their facts.
The punishment for failure to follow this rule (i.e being truthful and basing your statements on truthful facts) should be a universal ban from media communications as follows:
Media outlets not honoring this rule should themselves be banned.
BP ID: 1038 WC ID: 1476 VC ID: 18589 Tome ID: 3698
Quite a strict ruleset there, NB.
Much of this is knowingly bullshit, but even if called on it, the author retreats to 'I saw it on TV', or 'some people are saying..' and skates away with no damage.
It is destroying the cohesion of our society, since people are presented multiple versions of reality, and they are forced to pick one.
They therefore tend to pick the one they 'like'.
So you get multiple polarized (and polarizing) groups arguing on many issues, each convinced that their version of reality is the correct one.
IMHO, a fact-check rule and a strict rule-set IS needed.
BP ID: 1038 WC ID: 1476 VC ID: 18589 Tome ID: 3698
Im curious, what's your opinion on alot of people defending their nonsense by pulling out various arguments such as ""Free speech" or "freedom of expression" since I think that's an argument some have used to defend themselves?
The scummiest of ads have a fake [X] that is actually part of the add itself.
<|= 0302 0320 1310 1220 1211 0200 1313 1233 1302 1210 0230 =|>
<|= 0200 1211 0310 1303 0321 1301 1311 1221 1312 0312 1201 =|>
<|= 1230 1221 1211 0230 0320 0301 1232 1203 1211 0200 1221 =|>
<|= 1232 0200 1201 0302 0200 1210 0320 1221 1203 0232 1310 =|>
<|= 0232 1221 1233 1232 1201 1302 1321 0232 0232 0332 1331 =|>