Counting the civil war or no?

Bad take.

David Moscrop - Wikipedia

(en.m.wikipedia.org)

Journalists tell themselves they can make their ends meet by publishing a book pretty frequently.

Turns out that's rarely true. He seems to be mainly a podcaster though? Those lines can get blurry.

Also, the Jacobin is a magazine that still sells a printed version...

No, they'd just laugh at the morons

Seems more like a power thing but I guess that's greed too

I don't think it's "the left" as a whole but the literal Luddites would definitely have been considered part of it.

There's just going to be some overlap in the anti-capitalist Venn diagram on these issues.

Do counts with and without the civil war.

So, can you guess which percentage of people prefer using an smartphone to read these kind of anti smartphone articles? Do you see the issue? The irony?

This is just trash ragebait dude.

We found more common ground and more things that separate us, too.

I agree with your idea of regulating social media and I'd add that platforms should be mandated to open their walled gardens by implementing open protocols and force them to play nice with other platforms (said the guy on Lemmy.)

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the notion that an addiction only hurts the addict. I'd argue that's never the case. On the contrary, alcoholism or gambling can drag whole families or more into poverty. On top of the microcosm impact, albeit more of a European problem, I suppose (although I wouldn't want it any other way), substance-related addictions are a huge cost factor on our social health system, costing the public hand (us, me) huge sums and taking up ever scarcer hospital beds and treatment slots. Here comes my main point: History (especially yours with the prohibition period) proves that outlawing substances doesn't work, and neither am I for it. But our minds are vulnerable to suggestion and manipulation, and advertisement is utilising that fact by e.g., creating associations between drinking or smoking and sexual desirability. This is well known and it works too, or it wouldn't be the enormous industry it is. Now then, why should we allow the manipulation of our desires for something that is ultimately bad for EVERY part of society except the leeches directly profiteering from it? (I'm not even talking about the fact that children's minds are even more susceptible to this, but are for the most part just as exposed to the same stimuli our adult ones are. One of the restrictions for wine/beer ads here in my country, by the way: Not on daytime TV. Somewhat sensible at least.)

I wonder why you draw the line at medicine, by the way. What's the difference there for you?

Edit: Thanks for the respectful discussion, by the way. I appreciate it.

This is obviously true in the strictest sense, but I don’t think it’s going to have the desired effect you want in the long run. How’s the War on Drugs working out? It’s been going for 54 years, so I assume it’s about wrapped up now, drugs aren’t an issue, black market is choked out, and society is better off.

Firearms restrictions will be enforced unequally; it will be used as a pretense to further persecute minorities. Those with money will simply hire private security contractors who can jump through the legal hoops to get whatever they want. The majority of shootings in the US are related to drugs and other illegal activities that have logistics channels to get guns just as easily as drugs or exploited people. Guns are durable and the demand exists. They’re not going anywhere.

The gun problem in the US is not the cause of our woes, it is the symptom. “Make X illegal” is the laziest form of government and it’s just granting them more power which will be abused eventually.

Appreciated, but do you think the authorities want to win the war on drugs?