Comment on Capital of Estonia after a visit from Swedish football fans
oopsgodisdeadmybad@lemmy.zip 2 weeks agoPeople just never grow out of kindergarten. I still say nothing should excite anyone that much, at all, ever.
And alcohol rules being as loose as they are is total mayhem. Public alcohol should never have gotten this lenient. Staying prohibition didn’t exactly work out, but public events should be like one drink maximum. Maybe two. I dunno how to stop people, exactly, but bring dishes in public shouldn’t be possible.
JigglySackles@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I don’t think we should live with a limited set of emotions, just that we should control whatever we feel. I see nothing wrong with people being excited and overjoyed at something. Even if I find that something stupid and not worth my attention. It was worth theirs and they are excited about it.
My issues come at the destruction. Alcohol is a difficult topic. Prohibition of any substance just makes access more dangerous and less safe. There should probably be lower limits for public events though.
oopsgodisdeadmybad@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Feeling then and doing any kind of action are different. Nothing should get you that worked up, in my opinion. Emotionally and such, sure. But the “physically acting out” part not so much. For a sports or entertainment event I mean. If someone like does your kid, sure that should give you almost carte blanche to react. It’s not like you just magically teleport somewhere and wake up with a heavy dwindle object in your hand and fragile stuff out everywhere. There is premeditation of some sort happening in between. Hooting and hollering is acceptable, but if you go anywhere while drunk, you either need a responsible drunk sitter or a straightjacket with leg straps.
Drunk people are fucking idiots and shouldn’t be allowed even a quarter of the freedoms they currently have. No driving, no weapons, and no public, for starters. And by driving I mean one single DUI means lots of license for several years AT LEAST. I’d argue for permanent forfeiture, but that’s the absolute most lenient I would settle for. Given how dangerous they are behind a wheel, we aren’t even slapping them on the wrist, we’re just saying “no no no, little one”. The idea of a single tiny mistake should strike absolute mortal terror upon them as far as that goes. Not being able to get around (especially with our public transport system) is a devastating blow, and everyone should be one sip away from having to make major life rearrangements.
If they actually hit anyone or damage something, it skyrockets immediately and VERY steeply. I have no room for leniency or mercy. Even the legal limit is too high. Basically drinking and not being at home should make people nervous af.
JigglySackles@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I hear what you are saying and understand it. I want to agree with it to. The only thing for me with punishments that severe is that you catch accidentals at a way higher rate, and it becomes super easy to ruin someone’s life as a corrupt law officer or whatever other position.
I do think there is a probably a way to handle it that’s not life ruining but I don’t really want to delve into it that far atm. Besides that though, forfeiture of a license is just forfeiture of a license. That won’t stop people from driving without one. Especially if they need to get to a job to survive. I get that they make you angry, but extreme punishments like that tend to make life impossible or overly onerous to live and will just encourage and enable more risky behaviors. It comes into the cruel and unusual punishment territory.
And you can’t expect people to behave better if you make life extremely harder to live. This isn’t dark souls lol. You have to find a balanced approach. Some kind of correctional support should be in place with a strong but not life ending punishment. I do agree that most of the time our punishments now for issues stemming from drunkenness are too lenient. Especially in the cases where drunk drivers kill someone else. The slap on the wrist for DUI related deaths is a slap in the face to the victims and their families.
oopsgodisdeadmybad@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
This is slightly pie in the sky situation as far as correct punishment and corruption goes. I don’t think"accidentally" being called drunk happens that often, and there should probably be a neutral third party for confirmation and such.
But I’d much rather fuck some idiot’s life up than continue to let risky drivers ruin safety for everyone else. Maybe allow them to get it back after completing some stringent class, and have even higher consequences if they do it again.
I dunno about how to fix the cop problem exactly, as we’ve got bigger corruption problems to deal with right now, and capitalism is a bigger threat than the drunkest driver. But once you intentionally (and yes, drunk actions count) cause mortal danger on the road, just give up being independent.
We don’t have infrastructure for it, but it should be on the to do list.
The short version is, consequences should be way too scary to even potentially run afoul of, at least in a world without tyrants and shit. Just don’t be a dangerous, negligent person. It’s really not too much to ask. If someone thinks it is, then they’re probably one of the negligent ones.