W take
tanja
joined 2 years ago
Benutzername prΓΌft aus
Yes, basically agree.
But I just think it's kind of obvious why they only block one ethnicity, I believe protecting consumers was only the second priority here.
It simply makes no sense that it only blocks Chinese citizens specifically.
I don't want anyone to buy/own housing which goes uninhabited for a long time while there are so many homeless people who need a place to call home.
It's difficult to imagine a person struggling to buy/rent an apartment/house, and for them to get mad about nationalities, rather than the fact that housing needs to be an "investment opportunity" over being recognized as the basic human need that it really is.
I hardly care if it's Chinese people, Wallstreet, some Big Tech corporation, or just individual landlords driving up prices.
Housing must be accessible to all people, if a society wants to call itself civilized.
This bill going against Chinese citizens, rather than all foreigners tells you all you need to know about the real motivations behind it.
Could've worked on tackling climate change, inflation, homelessness, (some form of) European style health care, labour rights, or expand public transit, but they choose to discriminate against transgender people for zero gain.
Why are the United States so wird?
And how do you even enforce such a law effectively?
Many people have very good passing, and there have already been (self video-) recorded cases of cisgender people getting "accused" of being trans by some transphobe.
No one even wants these laws, at least most people don't.
And why is the headline so non-judgemental? "Regulates" isn't a good fit for tyranny imo.
Der gute Weg.
Firefox πΈβ¨
Ah yes, Elon mode
Love the 420 on the left
Babe, wake up
High quality 196 content just dropped π³οΈβπ
Just because these people can't vote yet doesn't mean they shouldn't have rights or be treated with dignity and respect like the rest of society.
I'm disappointed with people arguing that literally banning smartphones would somehow improve the social situation for anyone.
Just because you cannot see bullying or collect statistics about it quite as easily, does not mean it disappears. I'd argue the opposite: blocking others online is trivial compared to doing the same in-person.
We also have to acknowledge that some children simply are more introverted, and will want to stay more secluded than others. Forcing them to behave in other ways seems counterproductive.
Just because some parents (understandably) struggle with raising their kids shouldn't mean that they're all doomed to what amounts to nationwide collective punishment.
I for one support children's rights, at least on this one point.
Edit:
Exact circumstances can, and will very, as every child is unique. Therefore, we should allow for case by case decisions. Luckily, the de facto situation already has the parents deciding, which makes sense in most cases IMO.
And taking away the phones of other people won't stop online bullying either (e.g. spreading rumors without the victim's knowledge).
Yes yes πβΊοΈβ¨πΈ
π³οΈβππ³οΈβππ³οΈβππ³οΈβππ³οΈβππ³οΈβπ