Maybe that’s a trap of my upbringing as well but I don’t see that as American lens, I see that as recognizing there are a lot of lenses.

But you don’t. You don’t see how ingrained your perspective is. You can’t see your blind spots, that’s tje definition of a blind spot.

So you’re saying that any time anyone wants to refer to native Americans in any way, they should ask… Americans? Not even native Americans (a term which, incidentally, is also an example of this perspective lacking American perspective

What’s the offensive part here? Acknowledging Kamala’s heritage? Making a joke headline? What?

I’m pretty sure you can’t answer that without an exceedingly American perspective on it.

Here in Europe, we do consider these things. For one, it’s literally illegal to be a Nazi in Germany and do nazi salutes and whatnot, but that’s allowed in the US. A tit flashing on TV, however isn’t. The Washington Redskins only relabeled themselves “the Washington Commanders” in 2022.

but I wouldn’t want an American paper making jokes about Finnish biathalon Olympians spanking the Russians.

What? Why would that offend anyone? This is exactly what we mean when we talk about your American perspective. You just can’t imagine someone having different values and practices apparently.

It would be an amazing day for Finns if a huge American newspaper did a frontpage story about something like that.

I’m pretty sure that a lot of illustrations in Finnish newspapers when it comes to stories about saunas and mökki culture would be downright unacceptable in print media in the US.

And when you manage to half-understand someone elses reasons for doing something, you still don’t understand their motivation and then conclude by some highroading about being insensitive to death or something, implying your moral framework is superior. When the moral framework of the person who raised you probably included “segregation is just normal everyday business” at least in their childhood.

Because racism has been such a massive thing in the US for such a long time, some of you have become a little too sensitive and are eager to point out how racist other places are according to you. Simplest examples would be getting mad at the Spanish word for “black”, or the Korean word 네가 [nega]

“Any joke with cultural baggage”

Again, you can’t see that the cultural baggage is American. It’s not Italian. There’s no cultural baggage here, when viewed without your American perspective. That’s what I try to keep iterating.

Honestly, you don’t think you miss context when you probably don’t understand the cultural framework this was created in at all?

You do you, it’s just in poor taste.

This is the issue @sunzu@kbin.run is getting at. You saying it’s “in poor taste” is through the lens of what is considered “good taste” for Americans.

For instance, in my country, Finland, there’d be a lot of things Americans would generally find “in poor taste”. The most obvious example being that we don’t consider the naked human body to be inherently sexual, whereas Americans are really prudish about that sort of thing. So a lot of things related to sauna and mökki culture would be considered “in poor taste” for Americans, but they would not be so here. We also never tip (because we actually pay our workers.)

It’s ironic how you’re incapable of imagining another viewpoint in a debate where someone is trying to point out how bad Americans are at imagining other viewpoints.

“You do you.” Yeah. We do do we, that’s why the cultural values and what is “in poor taste” is different…?

"We’re sorry… ^(that ^we ^got ^caught) … "

I stand by my original post, which was a cursory google search of us history.

It wasn’t, or you’re horrible at it.

“when was weed made illegal” produces

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States

This

Which opens with

In the United States, increased restrictions and labeling of cannabis (legal term marijuana or marihuana) as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward, and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s cannabis was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act.[1] The first national regulation was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.[2]

Which indeed makes your attempt to mock someone for poor research / knowledge very ironic indeed

It was banned in 1970

You are coming across as very emotional about this, but you are showing how little you have researched.

Ironic.

1951-56:

Stricter Sentencing Laws

Enactment of federal laws (Boggs Act, 1952; Narcotics Control Act, 1956) which set mandatory sentences for drug-related offenses, including marijuana.

A first-offense marijuana possession carried a minimum sentence of 2-10 years with a fine of up to $20,000.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html#:~:text=Enactment of federal laws (Boggs,fine%20of%20up%20to%20%2420%2C000.

Alcohol was banned in 1920, and 13 years later, it was unbanned.

The prohibition was protested long before it was finally repealed.

Uneven enforcement and the continued circulation of illegal alcohol led to widespread lawbreaking, corruption, and a nationwide backlash. Opposition to Prohibition by elected officials and grassroots organizations in New York, including Governor Al Smith, Congressman Fiorello La Guardia, and the Manhattan-based Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR), increased throughout the 1920s.

https://www.mcny.org/exhibition/protesting-prohibition

Oh and yes, it would end illegal trade to the extent ending the prohibition of alcohol did.

I live in Finland and black market drugs are 1000x easier to get than black market alcohol. Or black market guns for that matter. Both exist, but not really.

Everyone knows someone who sells drugs of some sort. Most people’s definitely don’t know people who sell alcohol or drugs. Well, alcohol is slightly more common, but usually it’s just flogged tax free or even completely legally ordered in bulk from Germany and then sold to friends.

But yeah, the science is in and yes, legalising drugs would kill the illegal drug trade.

Just like I said. You won’t even question your attitude, despite the overwhelming objective evidence that you’re wrong, despite everyone in the drug trade admitting to this, despite world leaders calling for legalisation. See what I mean when I say that it’s people like you who are responsible for the horrible drug situation that we have? That amount of willful ignorance is literally harmful to society.

Where exactly do you think the guns come from? From legal manufacturers. Comparing guns to drugs is appealing because they seem so similar, yet they both have the exact same solution: regulation.

The US doesn’t regulate drugs, and it doesn’t really regulate guns at all either. In other countries, black markets for guns are ridiculously negligible. They exist, sure, but they’re ridiculously small compared to the US and the Americas in general. Perhaps because the US has a military-industrial complex. Again, about what makes money for people.

The only way to properly implement regulation to guns is to have proper gun laws, which most other countries have. The US is a massive outlier in gun-violence, exactly because of the lack of regulation.

The argument is also disingenuous because there’s only violent uses for guns, but the same doesn’t apply for recreational substances. Show me one larger culture group of humans that don’t have some sort of recreational way to get their buzz on. Might take you a moment. But to point out a culture which doesn’t have guns at all, or at least nearly to the level the US does? Pick a map and throw a dart on it, you’ll more than likely land on an example.

Legalizing drugs will not solve the problem. Instead, you will have food service workers carrying drugs like opium on them, without legal repercussions

This is exactly what I mean. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, so you make these asinine arguments that were brainwashed into you. So what if your waiter has a pinch of opium in his pocket? Alcohol is legal. Waiters carry alcohol all the time, for work even. Why doesn’t that bother you? Is it perhaps because it’s not cool to drink on the job? Would legalising drugs make it so that it’s socially acceptable to be fucking smashed at work? I’ve heard a ton of variations of this moronic bs “argument.” “*B-B-Bbut if we legalise drugs, I’ll have to worry about my surgeon being high when he’s performing surgery” “I don’t want to have to be piloted by some junkie scum” Like… when did you last meet a drunk pilot? A drunk surgeon? A surgeon who’s high? They have constant access to high grade narcotics, you know. Again, exactly what I meant, saying that you have to make up these fantasy scenarios which would never ever happen and even then the logic doesn’t even work.

You should ask yourself why was the prohibition of alcohol repealed. Googling that you might come upon names like “Al Capone” and even something as familiar as “Machine Gun Kelly”, but this one isn’t about the rapper. (Shortly: organised crime got so out of hand and the toxicity of homemade booze and even government poisoned booze that it was insane and the situation couldn’t be continued without society falling apart.)

Legalising drugs makes them safer, gets them out of the hands of criminals, meaning taxes for the government, health for drug abusers, and less stigma for responsible drug users. Yes, we exist, much like gays did even back in the 50’s. They just weren’t talked about all that much, for some weird reason. It’s not even just about what good it will do. It’s also about personal liberty.

“I don’t have to agree with you.” No, you don’t, but this isn’t my opinion. This is reality. So you’re saying “I don’t have to agree with reality and objective facts.” Which is exactly what I said in the first place; willful ignorance.

You did exactly as I said you would, and protested loudly, but I bet you didn’t read a single one of those links or even watch the 5 second clip. There really aren’t any other options except being ignorant of the matter or directly benefitting from drugs being illegal. Those are the only two type of people who think prohibition should be maintained. And if you think “I don’t think they should be legalised but I don’t benefit from illegal drugs in any way” then you’re in the former group.

If you are willing to use a substance that is (was) entirely illegal, you are more likely going to be willing to try other drugs that are legitimately addictive, because you’ve already crossed one of the major hurdle

It’s honestly rather ludicrous to still see 60’s propaganda being parroted. You’re on the internet, dude. There’s no need for you to be that ignorant.

“They’ve given me opiates in a medical setting so that’s why I know recreational drugs are bad for society”

So, to reiterate, exactly your type of intelligently stupid willfull ignorance is one of the main reasons that we have so many drug problems. If people like you weren’t brainwashed so easily, if you actually spent even a tiny bit of time looking into this subject, you’d realise you’re wrong. But you won’t. You won’t.

I’ve argued about this longer than most of Lemmy users have been alive. I know all the science. I bet you know none of it.

Drug prohibition does not work and anyone who supports it is either ignorant or directly benefitting from the illegal drug trade. That’s it. There’s no other alternatives. There is not a single logical reason to keep the prohibition according to science. Everything improves with proper legal frameworks in which to sell the drugs that clearly can not be effectively banned.

This isn’t about “feelings”. It’s about cold facts. And the fact is that by your rhetoric, by your behaviour, you’re indirectly enabling drug abuse and all the heinous shit that cartels get up to. That is unless you’re willing to admit you’re wrong and start supporting a complete reformation of this inane law. That’s the only moral position.

It isn’t safe to have people carrying drugs on them that can be used to poison others.

These are the types of weird fantasy scenarios you have to make up and it still doesn’t even work, in the slightest. There are a dozen more dangerous chemicals in everyone’s cleaning cupboard than anything you’d find sold as a recreational substance. Why aren’t they banned? Why are people allowed to handle gasoline by themselves? You know you could torch people with gasoline, right? And we allow people to drive around in metal hunks filled with gas, as incredibly velocities? You know you can die just from falling down, right? You walk on the street, every day. Anyone could push you and with bad luck, kill you.

People like you honestly never stop to think about the things you say. They make absolutely no sense. And it doesn’t matter to you that you can’t make a single thing make sense when you’re trying to defend the drug prohibition. No… it’s just been stamped to your brain that “DRUGS = WRONG” and you don’t have the cognitive capability to question that.

Here, have a listen to what a former police officer who used to infiltrate drug gangs has to say about the war on drugs: https://youtu.be/y_TV4GuXFoA?si=SXdIKIP1ON43N594&t=716 (Hint: his memoir is called “Good Cop, Bad War”)

There is literally no other option than to have a properly managed and regulated legal trade of these recreational substances. To keep the situation were currently in, willfully, is to willfully endanger lives, perpetuate drug ABUSE (not use, which is different) and to support criminal gangs which don’t give a fuck about anyone.

Oh right, that copper is just one guy. Hmm how about https://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/world-leaders-call-for-legalisation-of-drugs

And I could literally paste studies and data here for several comments to max char limit and it still wouldn’t even make you question that maybe you should question your feelings on the matter in accordance with reality. I know it won’t, because I’ve had this exact same argument a million times, and it’s always the same. If you really wanted there to be less problems caused by drugs, you’d be in favour of legalising them, as backwards as it must sound to you. Because legalising is the only way to take the market out of the hands of the criminals, as the market will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER die.

And it’s everyone’s business that people like you make drug reform impossible, because all the science agrees that the only way to solve “the drug problem” is to legalise and regulate everything.

You’re suffering from the same bias that transphobes who say “I can always spot trans people” do; you’re simply unaware of how blindingly ignorant you are of the reality of the situation.

“Despite our prolific history of abusing systems like this, we pinky-swear we won’t abuse this one.”

Most importantly… did you do the accent?

The pretentiousness is off the scales with this one

“What was a native phone functionality”

I’ve always had video calls on my native messenger since they became a thing.

They’ve never “gone” anywhere.

I’m from Finland, where Nokia is from. Mobile phone usage was higher here than pretty much anywhere since the 90’s. The later Nokias had video calls, but as you say, they wouldn’t have gone on the data plan, but charged as minutes (but not normal minutes, just like MMS was more expensive than std SMS).

The apps became more popular exactly for that reason; everything was on your data (which is unlimited), and not charged as SMS or minutes. A lot of the people I know don’t even do regular phone calls anymore, just using WhatsApp to call.

So yeah, no-one just used videocalls. What’s the point?

It’s honestly amazing that we had GPRS video calls in the late 2000s but still don’t have them in the era of the smartphone

Not really.

There plenty of resources if you want to video call. WhatsApp, TG, Signal or even (lol) Skype, have videocalls.

It’s just that why would you?

Most calls you definitely don’t need video, and often it’d be a downright negative thing. You need to look at the screen and look presentable, as opposed to being able to do things while on the phone.

The reason videocalls aren’t more popular is the same exact reason Google Glass isn’t.

One day the different parts of the body were having an argument to see which should be in charge.

The brain said “I do all the thinking so I’m the most important and I should be in charge.”

The eyes said “I see everything and let the rest of you know where we are, so I’m the most important and I should be in charge.”

The hands said “Without me we wouldn’t be able to pick anything up or move anything. So I’m the most important and I should be in charge.”

The stomach said “I turn the food we eat into energy for the rest of you. Without me, we’d starve. So I’m the most important and I should be in charge.”

The legs said “Without me we wouldn’t be able to move anywhere. So I’m the most important and I should be in charge.”

Then the rectum said “I think I should be in charge.”

All the rest of the parts said "YOU? You don’t do anything! You’re not important! You can’t be in charge."

So the rectum closed up. After a few days, the legs were all wobbly, the stomach was all queasy, the hands were all shaky, the eyes were all watery, and the brain was all cloudy.

They all agreed that they couldn’t take any more of this and agreed to put the rectum in charge.

The moral of the story: You don’t have to be the most important to be in charge, just an asshole.

I seriously doubt it’s a months worth of browsing, lolz.

It’s like those tests in which they test how far a car can go on a tank. They set up a perfect surface, perfect conditions, and keep the car steadily going at a steady speed and rpm. Something which would realistically never happen, accelerating once on a full tank.

I mean I guess it’s still a lot, but, you know, it’s very much rounded up.

Personally my phone would go days, but I can drain it in a matter of hours with active use. (This is like 6 years old though, but had a very large capacity for when it was released)

“of standby”

Well that’s not worth much.

Minimize energy consumption and put a large battery. Doesn’t seem that special.

My phone could probably do a fair few weeks on just standby in a power saving mode.

Your personal politics doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that you think “It’s only socialism if X” which you pull out of your arse.

Removed by mod