Uplifting News
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
view the rest of the comments
No. I downvoted because I believe you're wrong. I said if you get piles of downvotes, maybe you should engage in some self-reflection, because maybe you're wrong. I never said you're wrong, and this is one of those areas that isn't black and white, so assigning right and wrong is only reasonable to leave as a personal choice. That said, I also think it's very wrong to put forward your opinion and then be offended when others do the same, whether it be through comments or up/downvotes.
Personally I don't believe that something is more likely to be wrong because that is the view of 100 self-selecting people in this subset of a corner of the internet with entirely predictable opinions. We will agree to disagree on that point.
And I didn't say it did. But when a bunch of people say you're doing something shitty, it isn't a bad idea to take a few moments and ask, "Am I?" And coming back at them for saying it is never a good look, even if you're right.
It's 1800 and I'm against slavery, should I "take a few moments" and ask, "I'm in the minority, maybe they're right?"? It's 1935 Germany, is it "never a good look" to say that Jews are not in fact evil vermin? Etc. This is morality we're talking about. The votes don't matter.
You keep acting like I said the majority think something so they must be right. Yes, I think if you were living in those examples that you should take a good look at why you believe differently than the majority and be able to defend it. No, I don't think, even in those situations, spouting off on people disagreeing with you without giving an adequate defense of your position and merely that they're hating because of your differing position is useful and is going to convince someone of your stance.
It's me spouting off on people? Have you seen the comments I've received? What do you make of them?
In other comments in the thread I've gone on for paragraphs and paragraphs about exactly why I believe what I believe. If you really are interested, then read them. It boils down to: I'm against murder as defined by the law, and I think political violence is dangerous and counter-productive.
Ah, so you're edit in the original post was justified because they started it. Is that how morality works? They started the mud slinging, so it's okay now?
I did read your posts, and commented on others, and I agree with your stance. I'm pretty sure JFK did, to. It's basically the corollary of, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution impossible." So what peaceful solution do you propose to solve the healthcare problem in America given the state of your government for the last number of decades, and is it really a peaceful revolution if thousands are administratively killed in the process? And is that better or worse than killing a few people in the streets who have amassed obscene levels of wealth by promoting those deaths to make that happen a little faster, whether that be due to legislation or sudden policy reversals due to newfound altruism?
There are no easy answers in morality. This is why philosophers have written so many books about it.
It's not my government. I live in Europe and benefit from cheap universal healthcare. Boringly, I suggest that Americans pull the levers of their still-functional democracy, of which there are many. And then exercise some patience. Because the alternative - the inevitable authoritarian backlash to political violence - is worse.