this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
52 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33112 readers
1353 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Title

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 58 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Tax. Noone wants their money to be taken away. But it's probably a good idea to have at least some government funded stuff.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 25 points 2 days ago (6 children)

I mean, corrupted administration aside, is it really even "evil" to fund a institution that forsee the development of your surrounding? If anything it's simply quid pro quo, and people who generally against any taxation is always fishy to me.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] callouscomic@lemmy.zip 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

For the general masses that lack fucking brain cells. Some people actually comprehend the value of society and central public resources and WANT their money collectively put to good use.

[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Polarization is causing a lot of people to doubt that the collective money actually will be put to good use. In a lot of places (like my country, Israel) they're damn right, it's not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Emi@ani.social 13 points 2 days ago (7 children)

I might be wrong but I think people would gladly pay 50% of their income as tax if it meant they would get their basic needs met and see the money be put to a good use. Imagine getting just half your pay but be able to fully use it on whatever you want and not have to worry about food and rent. Or at least that's what I'd like to believe.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The tax being on your income and not entirely on corporations always felt like a fairly biased distinction. If companies paid the entire income tax long before it got to you, and you were simply paid ~2/3rds as much, I feel like people’s opinions would be different despite not much changing.

[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Tax laws are usually made to make it easy to collect, hard to dodge taxes.

If companies pay all the tax I could create a company, invoice my current employer, pay myself a salary that is equal to the entire profit margin. There is nothing left to tax.

You could try to patch the loophole but then you'll break down something else.

[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

That sounds backwards to me. If companies are paying all the taxes, why would you insert a second company into the chain? Then both companies would be paying a tax portion, and your salary would be that much less than if you just had a job.

Or were you thinking that you could bamboozle the government out of the tax revenue by saying "Oops, no profit! Salaries cost too much!"? I don't think that would work unless the entire structure was built with one directive in mind: "Reward Hollywood accounting"

[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The Blackfoot nation on which Maslow based his hierarchy of needs would actually have a celebration each year where they'd give everything they'd amassed away.

The actual basis for the "hierarchy" of needs is essentially that a community takes care of each other so that all needs are met, and this is found not just in Blackfoot but along the majority of indigenous cultures. (I write in quotes because it was never really a hierarchy, it was more of a cyclical chain of getting needs met)

There's a really good read on what inspired the Hierarchy of Needs here. Most of the changes that Maslow made to his findings were actually due to him wanting to make it more palatable for his individualistic colonial audience.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 50 points 2 days ago

Killing hitler and the nazis. Not just the top guys. Also the bottom layers of the system.

Killing is bad. But...its nazis.

Same also goes to all other dictators and their helpers. Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Putin, Assat, Lenin

[–] notabot@piefed.social 49 points 2 days ago

Surgery, especially on animals.

In any other context, someone cutting you open, slicing bits out or rearranging them, them sewing you shut would be considered horrific, but we do it because we know that the short term suffering out weighs the long term harm of not doing it. When you choose it for yourself it might not be too 'evil', but an animal would not understand, even if you know it will mean they get to live a long, happy life, free of the pain and suffering that issue would otherwise cause.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 38 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Prison seems the obvious one. It's obviously (to me, that is) not desirable to deprive anyone of their freedom, but for persistently violent people I don't think there's a better solution, unfortunately.

[–] Mastema@infosec.pub 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I agree that separating people who do not abide by the contract of society is necessary, but I think we (America) are wrong to make it a punitive experience. Separate them and let them live their lives as comfortably as they can. Causing additional suffering does not seem to be necessary.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Currently trying to lock up as many of the populace all the numbers show cause less crime. At some point we are going to have to question if there is a higher percentage of psychopaths out of prison than in.

Edit: note, a large group of people would say "we need to lock up more people to solve it" and a large group of people would say "we need to let out all the not-psychopaths who aren't a threat to society and then only arrest those who are a threat". And somehow both would think they were humane. And propoganda would role out to convince the first group they should lock up the second group. Because compassion or empathy is a threat

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Agreed. I don’t even believe in free will, so prison makes even less sense to me - in the sense that we’re punishing people for doing something they couldn’t not have done. That said, I have no doubt that the fear of imprisonment acts as a deterrent - at least to some extent. And just because someone can’t help themselves doesn’t mean they should be allowed to roam free, harming others.

Ideally, we’d place people like that on a private island with no one to harm, where they could still live a good life. But since that’s not realistic, prison it is. I still think prisoners should be treated well, no matter the crime. Punishment itself doesn’t make much sense to me - but the fear of punishment does. And that fear isn’t credible unless we follow through.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I remember listening to an episode of hardcore history about capital punishment, it detailed public executions throughout the ages, and the takeaway is this:

You could literally publicly rip people limb from limb with horses and rope, people are still going to steal, assault, and rape.

If seeing someone getting skinned alive isn't enough of a deterrent, I don't know why prison would be.

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure, but the fact that fear of punishment doesn't deter everyone, doesn't mean it doesn't deter anyone. Good example from my own life would be speeding; the fear of losing my license is the main reason I don't do it.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

Sure, but I wouldn't exactly categorize speeding as an 'evil' act - just reckless.

But then there are malicious crimes. These kinds of crimes are driven by motivations which regularly transcend punishment.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I've been meaning to read some stuff about how to approach criminal justice if we don't have free will, but I keep reading other stuff instead. So many books, so little time!

I still think prisoners should be treated well, no matter the crime.

Yes, absolutely. Even for the worst of the worst, their should be rehab attempts, whether it's anger management, getting them away from gangs - whatever it is they need. I think there are only small numbers of people, if there are any at all, who are really irremediably violent and dangerous, but even for them I'm not exactly happy about putting them away indefinitely.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Its simply a matter of harm mitigation.

It simply isnt fair to the rest of society to place people who actively seek harm onto others, back on the street.

I think this is less of a case of 'dont keep them in prison for the rest of their lives' and more of a 'we should improve prison conditions' type of argument.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago

Right, but we mitigate that harm (good) by depriving people of their freedom (bad). It is necessary to do it, for the exact reasons you suggest - to reduce evil overall.

load more comments (1 replies)

Violence against fascists.

[–] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I bought a Pixel so could install a degoogle OS on the phone. This largely removed Google from my life.

[–] Laristal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Shame they're making that harder going forward by removing pixel specific info from the build tree

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I considered that risk before getting a Pixel 8 and it burns a little yeah. I'll use it like every other phone that stops getting updates for a few more years in the worst case scenario, then move to FairPhone I guess.

[–] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The updates will take a little longer that is all. GOS is not in the same boat as other custom rom devs - they don't have build trees either.

GOS is talking to a couple of OEMs about getting a GOS phone produced.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DioramaOfShit@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Luigi mangione

Evil that's necessary isn't evil, just painful.

Anyway, my example: a fever? 😅

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Police. As much as I hate their current incarnation, I. Some form or fashion they are required to handle those that do harm to others intentionally.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheBeege@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago

Money. It encourages greed, but it allows us to scale exchange of goods and services far more than we otherwise could

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Government.

In an ideal world, everyone would get along and coordinate effectively in a voluntary manner. There would be no need for any government to enforce laws or provide services.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Etterra@discuss.online 6 points 1 day ago

Existence. It's also a paradox because without existence it's impossible to be either evil or necessary.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] T3CHT@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Lobotomy, electroshock and castration are historic treatments for various extreme mental disorders that were, probably mistakenly, considered necessary evils lacking other treatments.

These days prozac, benzos and lithium fall into a similar category.

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

I'm not sure if you're comparing SSRIs to castration but I'm gonna assume you're not.

I dont think any prescriber would consider any of those medicines necessary. a much better example would be steroids like prednisone. it weakens your immune system, but it's absolutely necessary at times.

SSRIs are rarely necessary, but are a useful tool. too much to say on this.

Benzos are a short term solution to enable more longer term treatments. they're absolute monsters of a drug class, but really effective for sure.

fentanyl would be a better example of a necessary evil. it's synthesis revolutionized surgery.

finally, lithium is a funny example -- we still don't even really know how it works!! but it's a mood stabilizer and can be hugely beneficial for managing bipolar disorder. that said, one can attempt to manage bipolar symptoms without medications, but it's certainly going to be harder and possibly less effective

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 3 points 2 days ago

When your only option to make people talk about your cause and occupation is comitting attrocities

load more comments
view more: next ›