enkers

I didn’t even realize where we were until I read your comment.

I agree, and understand change takes time. But to be clear, I’m saying advocating for half measures is relatively ineffective, not that half measures themselves have no effect.

Really? That’s how things play out in reality for sure, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be calling for anything less than a complete abolition of animal exploitation and cruelty. But let’s try it with some social movement that’s often discussed on Lemmy to be sure. Do you think this is a good take:

“You shouldn’t call for an end to the genocide in Gaza, that’s unrealistic. Just stick to ‘Israel should try and kill fewer Palestinians.’ Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.”

The problem of advocating for half measures is that you don’t properly communicate that the behavior in question is unacceptable. It sends a mixed message: “It’s bad and you shouldn’t do it, but it’s still OK to do a little.”

If you can’t understand the difference between structure and content, there’s no point in discussing further.

I don’t mean to equate anything here, but do you think that would have been an effective strategy for social change in other movements?

Like: “What if we just did a little slavery? It’ll be much easier to convince slave owners to give up slavery if they got used to having just a few slaves.”

Do you think that would have been an effective strategy instead of calling for complete abolition?

Once again, I’m not trying to draw a comparison here, you could substitute any past social movement, but the logical structure should hold regardless.

For viewers in the developed west, “there’s plenty of stuff that we can do as individuals,” said Cowperthwaite: eat less meat, reduce food waste, buy less.

Disappointing the directors don’t fully reject consumption of animals, but not surprising since we can’t even covince people to wear a mask when they’re sick.

Clearly they’ve found a new way to bundle your internet, cellular, satellite tv, auto insurance, pet walker, and lawn care, all in a new ultra-value^† bundle.

^(† ultra-value only available for first month, cancellation fees may apply; we reserve the right to package and sell your totally for realsies anonymous usage data)

I see an elephant. What does that mean, Dr. Rorschach?

No they aren’t, but at least they’ll typically be working with and advised by people who do have that domain knowledge. And yeah, I could see a system working where there’s basically a veto vote for the people.

Direct democracy sounds like a horrible system for national governance, though. The average person has nowhere near the capacity to be informed enough on a wide range of issues to make good decisions. You need specialists with deep domain knowledge to guide policy decisions, not lots of laypersons.

I think it’s a good heuristic, but it’s not always true. It butts heads with the law of unintended consequences, and the law of big numbers, especially when you’re in a more global community.

I think you’re absolutely right to trust your gut, but it’s also important to verify those feelings with introspection and logic.

Yeah. I used to think people who were against GMOs were just anti-science contrarian types, but the more I saw of how Monsanto operates, the more I became cognizant of how it’s mostly just capitalism trying to stick its grubby hands in to literally everything to extract maximum profits.

We’re on social media. Sometimes people are a little carless with how they write, and are maybe a little more terse than they ought to be. Taking every post completely literally and not giving people the benefit of the doubt seems a bit silly. I take no umbrage with the statement, because I know who they’re talking about, and it’s not me. I have nothing to be scared of.

I’m a (kinda) old cis white male, and I know that they’re not talking about me, because I’m not a bigot or racist.

Thou shouldst do as thou pleases.

I agree, it’s best to not pull at the fraying threads of democracy, but it’s not like there’s never been a controversial election before. Take the 2000 Gore v. Bush election, for example.

If Reuters wants to expose the laying of groundwork, then they have to do more than baiting a fairly mundane statement out of a single R. They have to collect evidence of republicans doing it themselves. This is just lazy reporting that plays to peoples fears.

Trump and his allies are laying the groundwork to contest a potential loss

While that’s probably true, Rubio kinda gave a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question. Of course there are possible circumstances that any reasonable person would not honour the results of an election.

Of all the ridiculous shit these guys say, maybe don’t pick the one time they’re actually in the right. Like they tell on themselves all the time, you generally don’t have to twist their words.

What strange phrasing. Were people really looking for reasons to rule out suicide? What we’re actually looking for is evidence to rule out causes other than suicide.

Also, what’s up with the bizzare incomplete quotations? Is the “as suicide” bit an accurate representation of the quoted source material?

If anything this makes me question gizmodo’s integrity more than dispel any myths.

Maybe she was worried that raising those concern’s could potentially have her daughter sidelined?

I missed that part about the revealing clothing. Maybe you’re right, and it’s just unchecked puritanism. Perhaps I’m giving this lady too much benefit of the doubt.

That’s not how things seemed to me at all. She wasn’t trying to get the other girl kicked off the team. The other girl was potentially putting her daughter at risk, and she was just trying to keep her daughter safe.

Whether or not some teenage partying is actually a significant risk, I don’t really have a strong view on, but I can certainly understand the thought process.