50

Title

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] zxqwas@lemmy.world 66 points 1 week ago

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 1 week ago

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.

[-] zxqwas@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

It's evil to take someones money. It's necessary because it funds the surrounding. A necessary evil, as op asked for.

[-] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

It's evil to take someones money.

Except when you are buying things? Look at it as living in society with roads, fire fighters and clean water requires a purchase.

There is nothing morally wrong with paying people who provide a service.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago

It is only if it's taken without something in return though, akin to stealing or robbing, else taking someones money in return for a service or goods would count as evil. Taxation always come with expectation of something in return, it's in some way similar to paying for service.

Literally the point of money is to exchange it for something.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] callouscomic@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 week ago

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 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 1 week ago

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.

[-] zxqwas@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Where I live a majority of the voters are generally okay with high taxes (35%-50%) as long as it's only shared with other people who works and pays taxes.

[-] KnitWit@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

And what about the less fortunate? The infirm and disabled? They can rot?

[-] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Plenty of people think they're already getting more than they need and anyone who says otherwise is just pretending to be ill to get a free ride at the taxpayers' expense, and could just get a job if they wanted. The right wing press pushes this narrative and people fall for it.

[-] KnitWit@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Agreed, just wanted to see if the OP would admit to it as well. Fully expect either no response or a passing of the buck along the lines of ‘I want to help who need it, but people hypothetically could take advantage of the system so let’s just scrap the whole thing.’

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

[-] notabot@piefed.social 51 points 1 week 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.

[-] Goldholz 49 points 1 week 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

[-] Photuris@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

These control freaks keep popping up, and so we’ll have to do it again.

[-] Goldholz 6 points 1 week ago

Yes. And maybe also rework all our democracys that its not one person with power* but a council like in switzerland and rework it that these kinds of people have no chance of ever poping up aka ENSURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE NO LIVING PROBLEMS aka make sure everyone has housing, food, water, education no matter how much money it costs. Oooh nooo that would hurt the shareholders. Nawww too bad. LETS HURT THEM MORE!

[-] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Maybe the way isn't just killing and incarcerating the past generation of murderers without a demolition of the ideologies and attitudes that led to it, in order to rebuild a society that 'naturally' abhors violence, that enjoys <-> tolerates other tribes while always recognising that people are people, that our differences are basically superficial and nobody is born evil, that life is 'sacred' and money is secondary... Maybe then, we could better prepare for rich fuggs who seek to profit from war and disunity and will use the 80% of unthinking sheep for their benefit. You can't just kill ideas like racism, like vacuous consumerism, like "Crusades good! Lebensraum! God wills it!", people need to give them up willingly before. If not for the sake of doing what's right, at the very least for the sake of long term safety.

We shall see in the next 20 years how this plays out through the decline of the US and EU, and the eventual total collapse of at least one of those.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 39 points 1 week ago

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 25 points 1 week ago

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 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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

nah, the justice system is absolutely fucked. in a world where we remake the law around restorative and rehabilitative justice rather than punitive, we're probably not even going to be calling it "prison" anymore

[-] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 week ago

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 1 week ago

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

[-] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago

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 5 points 1 week ago

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)
[-] BotsRuinedEverything@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

Violence against fascists.

[-] DioramaOfShit@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Luigi mangione

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

Anyway, my example: a fever? 😅

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago
[-] medicsofanarchy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Not sure why anyone's downvoting this. If someone you've never met thinks that you have to put your life on the line, and therefore may possibly die, to further a cause - let them explain that cause. If they can't convince you it's more important than your life, then maybe it isn't.

See: Vietnam, etc.

Edit: My bad, I was thinking, "What's a good example of evil?" - Conscription should never be "necessary". The only thing conscription does is protect the status quo. Keep the upvote - it was an honest mistake on my part.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Vietnam is a good example of a bad example. WWII is a better example of the necessary evil part, especially countries that were invaded.

[-] TheBeege@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

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

[-] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] DempstersBox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Except here's the thing: in every form and fashion, they don't actually do anything to the ones doing the most harm

[-] T3CHT@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago

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 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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

[-] truite@jlai.lu 1 points 1 week ago

Electroshock is still a "treatment" in many countries.

[-] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

Necessary for what? The word necessary implies a goal. Evil also implies a religious type objective morality. I don't think though, that for the goal of living a happy life, any harm is theoretically necessary.

[-] bravesilvernest@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago

Jordan Peterson, is that you? 🙃

[-] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Define Jordan Peterson. Define you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 5 points 1 week ago

I don’t think though, that for the goal of living a happy life, any harm is theoretically necessary.

Whose happiness are we talking about? Surely if one person's happiness conflicts with someone or something that already exists, they can't both have happiness and harmlessness. (Also, what are you considering harm? Just harm to people? What about animals? Plants? The planet as a whole?)

Modern human life is inherently very harmful to a wide range of things.

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
[-] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago
[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That's annoying, it totally displayed on my side. I think I fixed it now, but kinda ruined my joke...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 3 points 1 week ago

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

[-] LordCrom@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Mosquitos.

Fuck them. But without them most ecosystems would fail

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Is there any evidence for that?

[-] vane@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Go to your room and close door.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
50 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

33292 readers
1455 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