Comments by "Ida Larsen" (@idalarsen2540) on "The Daily Show"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bladeswillxbleed It's totally out of control.
I'm not American tho, and actually live in a place that makes it a lot easier to trust our government (for the most part). Our media has strict rules as well, not giving them the oppurtunity to either cover opinions as news, we only get actual objective news, not only national news, but international. They're not allowed to "pick a side" (like fox news = right-winged and cnn = left-winged). We also have MANY parties, we even have three parties in control. We do have one party that wins, but that party has to choose two other parties to lead with. Then the rest of the elected parties have seats in parliament. We have so many parties that not every party gets enough votes to even have ONE chair in parliament. So, it's highly democratic. This means that we don't have two sides, so we don't have to deal with our politics like you do in the states. This has many upsides to it, obiviously. This makes it way harder as well for our news media to have noticeable biases. We also know that our news media has to tell us the truth, we can't have news media that gives us their OPINION on the news instead of the actual news. Our broadcasters and journalist's job is simply finding the truth as it stands in the moment and relay that information objectively, to not create confusion. This is a really good thing. It allows us the people to argue about the context of the news instead of what the actual true news are. This is really helpful to everyone. Not saying bias doesn't exist and that it's all perfect, but our setup is way better. It gets the truth out.
There's no wonder people in the states feel like it's hard to know what's real and what isn't.
I truly hope that with the new administration that came in this January will help get things back on track as much as possible.. but the work load is MASSIVE and extremely complicated, so it will take time and fuck ups (which they hopefully and most likely will learn from, unlike the previous administration in "charge"), but that's natural. You can't expect everyone to get everything right, all the time. That's simply impossible, even for the best of us. It does seem like things are going in the right track at least. There hasn't even been one single month with the new admin, so it would be lunacy to expect them to have solved everything already. This takes time and effort - and coorporate work. We have to work together for this to work out. The road is long, but we have no choice but to continue the fight for the entire world.
It just sucks how shitty the US gov is, considering everything. Reform on so many levels are need. Yet, we can't give up. We just can't.
4
-
I mean.. I totally get where she's coming from and all that, and I absolutely agree that we need to seriously reimagine what policing in America looks like, but I don't believe completely getting rid of all policing is the solution.
It's absolutely impossible to get rid of all crime, so we do need law enforcement to do just that - enforce the law. I'm totally for the concept of dradtically shrinking the police funding and number of police, and instead offer strong social programs that prevents crime from happening.. but even in the most utopic and safe world, crime will never be eradicated. We should absolutely focus more on prevention, that's key to true reform and justice.. but that's complicated, and requires reform on not just policing, but every other aspect of governing. That includes ensuring affordable and quality housing for every single person, ensuring affordable/free, quality and accessable health care to again literally every single person, ensuring every single person quality employment with quality pay, the list goes on.. you get the idea. The thing is though, even with all these things in place, you'll never be able to 100% prevent all crime. Proper policing is not just about preventing crime, but bringing justice when it occurs, which it always inevitably will. That's just the sad reality.
We need reasonable solutions that actually makes sense. American policing today is totally indefensable, and it needs to drastically and systematically change. We need to look more at alternatives to deal with homeless people, domestic disputes, drug issues, mental health crisis', and all non-violent offenses, but as well look critically at all existing laws, and reevaluate what we deem illegal and not. Prison reform is also massively important, as well as complete drug reform. Policing is a massive issue, but by far not the only issue. Police unions needs drastic change as well.
I just think that colmpletely aboloshing the police isn't reasonable.. a dradtic reduction on the other hand is reasonable AND necessary. Redistributing funding is as well - that's one of the more attainable solutions to the issue at large. Social programs supporting lifting people up and out of desperation, homelessness, health issues including drug addiction and all of these things are real solutions that can be done. Completely aboloshing the police simply isn't realistic. I certainly wish that COULD be a reality, but that's wishful thinking. We need to look at other solutions. I recommend looking at how other countries, those with the least amount of crime are doing policing.. they're obiviously doing something right, and have figured out great stuff that America hasn't yet. That includes getting money and "lobbying", aka legal bribery out of politics, so real solutions CAN take place, instead of quality, meaningful policies being dead at arrival due to police unions, prison "lobbyists" etc. bribing politicians to not change anything.
Money in politics is what we keep coming back to - it truly is the root of all evil, and the thing that mostly obstructs progress from taking place.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@abpro3xt.215 Not true. Most of the time, the quality is the same or even worse for women. Like razors. Same goes for pants. Pants are tailored differently for men and women due to obiviously different body types. Yet, just think of a kind of pants that use the same fabric, from the same store, the same fit (despite the different tailoring to fit our different body-types), everything's the same. Yet women's pants costs more despite being just about the same. Usually, men get better quality, their stitching are usually of a much higher quality, as well as pants for men having adequate pockets. Usually not the case for women's pants. We're lucky if we even have pockets on our pants, and when we get that "luxury", they're extremely tiny. They can barely fit a single key. There's no chance for them to be able to fit and entire set of keys like we all usually have, a wallet or a phone. Men never have that issue. Pockets also add on to production costs. Not significantly, but making pockets obiviously adds on more fabric and stitching. Same goes for making more room in pants for men to fit their.. junk.
Still, pants for women cost way more. Same goes for everything else that's either marketed towards men or women. It makes no sense at all.
Also, saying women "shop way more" is just a nonsense stereotype. That's not something most women do. It's simply a stereotype. There's loads of men out there that shop equally as much or way more.
That "women shop more" can really only be applied to makeup, as there's obiviously more women using makeup than men. Everything else is just a stereotype.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ThePinkBinks Oh cool, may I ask you where you're from? I guess I don't remember too much of history classes, so I can't really remember who descented from Norway 😅
I surely agree with you. We should all, no matter if we live on the smallest place on earth, or the biggest, that promoting fact and science based information both in our politics and our media. It should at least be much better clarified what is actually based on science and/or evidence or not. At least. That would eliminate so many problems all over. News and opinion is not the same thing, not to be confused at all. I don't blame regular citizens too much (I do blame some citizens a little tbh 😅), I blame those in power. Not only the government, but coorporate owners whose businesses are directly impacting lives.
It just seems reasonable to me to not allow for news programs to broadcast opinions while disguising it as actual news. It shouldn't happen at all.
Oh and yeah, there's so many bizzare stories about people doing the craziest shit when it comes to the pandemic. Ugh.
Well yeah, for us small countries that have no choice but to work with other nations, we find it to be a (mostly) positive thing to do. It's kind of like asking your neighbour for some sugar or whatever, hehh.. Having to work together with often times many other countries is greatly benefitial. I guess that gets fairly lost when it comes to at least the world's largest nations, like the US, China, Russia and such. I guess they get a bit lost in power, wishing to be "the greatest country of all" and whatever. To me at least, that seems like dangerous thinking. Having to be number one. Big problems are sure to arise from that kind of mindset and goal.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@fauxvid-19healer45 I'm amazed at how misinformed you are. Any logical person would understand that t's behaviour and his republican senators etc. that supports him talking about (non-existent) voter fraud, rallying his base up to get them angry and believe these lies, that speech he held saying they have to show strenght instead of weakness, the "stormthecapitol"-hashtag, his rethoric itself for 5 years, especially this last year building up to, during and after the election, claiming over and over again that the election is getting stolen and that they have to fight to take it back and so much more? Also the fact that during the terrorist attack he did NOTHING but watch the news as the attack happened for two whole hours, practically getting forced to give an address saying reluctantly that although he loved and support them that they should "continue the peace" and so much more.. Although he maybe never said to storm or attack the capitol directly, it's obivious that this outcome was forseeable. That in itself is criminal. When you do something, if your actions can lead to forseeable damage/criminality that is still criminal. Intent doesn't really have to be there for it to be criminal, it's still criminal acts if what you're doing, despite not intending to can result in forseeable damage. This was surely forseeable, saying elsewise is stupid or ignorant. Your points here and there just makes no sense.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2