179
submitted 5 days ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/news@lemmy.world
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] aarch0x40@piefed.social 46 points 5 days ago

Furthering that they are indeed not the "Pro-Life" party but instead the "Pro-Birth" party.

[-] SGGeorwell@lemmy.world 27 points 5 days ago

Capitalism demands a high birth rate as well as a high death rate. They want a lot of people I their prime working years, and after that they want you to die.

[-] Tehbaz@lemmy.wtf 1 points 5 days ago
[-] Jumbie@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 days ago

Anti-woman.

1980s anti-seatbelt News segment: There's no freedom no more

Safety regulations, gun laws, and masks mandates: "This is an outrage! I am a libertarian. Get big brother out of our lives!"

Invasion of privacy, inescapable surveillance networks that use live facial recognition technology, and a giant Palantir database that will contain every individual's data and connections to friends, family, and acquaintances with zero oversight or regulations to keep track of who uses it or how it's used (bc "libertarian"): "Stop being so paranoid. If you have nothing to hide you should have nothing to fear."

[-] velindora@lemmy.cafe 18 points 5 days ago

Oh republicans, always missing the point

[-] Manjushri@piefed.social 8 points 5 days ago

They're not missing the point. They are actively obfuscating the real point so they can use the issue to push their agenda.

[-] velindora@lemmy.cafe 1 points 5 days ago

agreed, but what is the agenda here? I’m not arguing I’m just curious what you think.

Is it reducing liability costs? I imagine making car manufacturers more responsible could cause a heavy financial burden

[-] Manjushri@piefed.social 4 points 5 days ago

It's basic libertarianism. They want to get rid of all regulations and let businesses do whatever they want. The bottom line is all that matters to them. They want to remove the requirements for these safety features will make it less expensive to manufacture cars, but it won't lower the costs. Manufactures will just pocket those savings without passing them on to the consumer. And then they'll move on to removing more regulations.

It's not even libertarianism at this point. I don't have a name for it; part stupidity, part bravado, no compassion, no responsibility.

[-] Jumbie@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 days ago

Isn’t that the definition of libertarian?

[-] brendansimms@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago
[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

I honestly don't understand why "shareholder value" has not already demanded something like this, given how formulaic most "leadership" actually is.

I think I know the reason, and the entire narrative is mostly bullshit, and instead the wealth that companies generate is set up to be extracted by a very, very few and they sit on each others' boards and set up their own compensation, etc...

[-] CaptainHowdy@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 days ago

Well the CEO is typically also a large shareholder. They are compensated with shares in addition to salaries. The idea is that they will ensure shareholder value because it also increases their pay.

Not saying I like it, just explaining why they hurt CEOs

[-] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago

yeah, whatever. doesn't affect me too much.

I will continue fixing up my piece of shit old cars until I literally cannot get parts for them, and by then there will probably be an actual viable alternative for me that isn't a 2018 shitty-tech infested nightmare with poor visibility, bloated size, and headlights that will get people killed

[-] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 5 days ago

The point of cars is the manliness of danger haven't you ever seen fast and the furious?

[-] X@piefed.world 4 points 4 days ago

Republicans steadfastly remaining poster children for the dangers of their most prominent pastime: unrestrained inbreeding.

[-] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago

Are you Elon Musk? If not, disregard. Otherwise, hey, fuck you.

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 days ago

Some of the push for “safety” has been responsible for cars lasting less and getting larger as well… but I’m sure this is NOT what they mean.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

That's the part they like because their donors are oil companies.

[-] garretble@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

Recent related video from a channel that helped radicalize me: Not Just Bikes

Keep these Stupid American Trucks out of Europe

[-] zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

Wow, I actually agree with the Republicans for once.

[-] MehBlah@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

Strap Rafael Cruz to the bumper and run another test.

[-] reggu@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Some think they covet our deaths for a plausibly higher profit margin, but they are obviously incorrect. True prosperity is their having the freedom to throw our lives away, not that they would.

[-] Xopher@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago

If only we could put some of them in these "Freedom Cars" for a nice drive.

[-] zwerg@feddit.org 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

As someone who cycles, I sometimes think we should ban air bags and seat belts to level the playing field a bit.

[-] shapeofthings@piefed.ca 9 points 5 days ago

Ahhh, a cyclopath.

[-] TheFogan@programming.dev 2 points 5 days ago

Well I mean the bulk of the features they are railing about aren't even currently in most cars, Emergency breaking seems about 50/50 on protecting you vs others (hits the brakes if it detects you mindlessly driving towards something), and then the system that prevents people from leaving babies in the back seat.

this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
179 points (100.0% liked)

News

33420 readers
1157 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS