EndOfLine @ EndOfLine @lemm.ee

Posts

3

Comments

104

Joined

2 yr. ago

The first two sentences of the article literally answer your question.

"The Why Files" and "Kutzergart".

If I'm really not ready to sleepy, I find the content interesting. If I am ready to sleep but my brain won't shut down then I ignore the words and I find the voices very soothing and relaxing.

Whaaaaaat? Years of saying he was right about everything, acting like he could do no wrong, protecting him from the consequences of his words and actions, and encouraging his narcissism has lasting consequences?

If only they had one or two opportunities to stop him from running for president a second time.

I think that there is something wrong with the "not my job" approach. I believe in the saying "The only thing evil needs to thrive is for good people to do nothing."

Assuming that everyone has shared in your socioeconomic upbringing and therefore has the same access to diverse ideas is flawed.

I am personally inspired by Daryl Davis, a black musician who, through simple conversation, has convinced grown adult Ku Klux Klan members to change their ways and renounce the KKK.

I believe that people should work towards the changes they want to see manifest in the world.

I understand the frustration and seeming futility in trying to change the minds of those with opposing views. It takes constant work and vigilance, but it is important challenge their ideas. Even if you make zero impact on them, you can reach other people. Especially if you have the discussion in a public venue, like an internet firum. Even if you don't change any minds, if you truly believe in something then you should continue to work towards it.

As for the "they should already know better" argument, I wonder if you are familiar with Daryl Davis, a black musician who would sit with members of the KKK and talk to them about their beliefs. He has well over 20 robes from former klansmen who have given him their robes after he changed their views with those conversations. Turns out that most of them have never had anybody calmly listen to and then dispute the racist claims that they grew up with and have heard repeated their whole lives.

Notice how I am talking about confronting and challenging ideas, not tolerating them.

The only thing evil needs to thrive is for good people to do nothing.

This sounds like you are promoting an "I'm right, your wrong, and I have no responsibility to correct or educate." mentality. I'm not sure if trusting the people with opposing views to change on their own is the best approach. I think only deepens divides and entrenches opposition.

People with opposing ideas do exist in a vacuum and will have no problem putting the time in to recruiting others to their way of thinking and promoting similar thinkers to positions of power and influence. Ostracizing those you disagree can just as easily put you in a bubble of isolation, or an echo chamber, as them.

Not to mention that discussing opposing ideas improves understanding both by defending your views and by better understanding the why and origins of their ideas.

universal mask and COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the city

So municipal mask and super flu vaccines are still okay?

• Not saying "please" or "thank you" to people in the service industry
• Not able to accept when they are wrong
• Any type of "I know enough and don't need to learn more" type of behavior
• Prioritizing an organization (political party, church, sports team, etc) over actual people
• Littering

Think of it like this

• HTTPS hides what you are saying.
• VPN hides who you are saying it to.

"inflammatory", "ibuprofen"... I see what you did there. It took me a while, but I eventually got there.

Supporters say it ensures every driver pays their fair share. But the fee is nearly double what an average driver would pay in taxes at the pump, according to consumer advocates.

Sounds like the foundation for legal challenges from EV manufacturers.

I am happy to take your word for most of it, but it does not change my view. I am completely in favor of identifying and taking steps to remediate the underlining cause of all forms of crime rather than simply punishing violators. That being said, the hubris that an individual, or group of individuals supercedes the survival of an entire species is repugnant to me. I have no sympathy for anybody that actively contributes to the the extinction of another species (except mosquitos).

The one point of your argument that I do question is the "kill a rhino and get enough money to last a few years" claim. While I have not looked into the details in India, as I understand it, poachers in Africa can make roughly the equivalent of an average 1 month salary for killing 1 rhino. If, in India, they make enough money to last a few years than either poachers are almost exclusively first timers, which seems highly unlikely to me, or they are doing it for greed rather than survival, which would negate your argument of the restrictive hunting laws.

And if they were hunting non-endangered species for food, then I would be outraged by a lethal response, but that's not the case here.

You are using 2 different analogies that contradict each other. The poachers are cultivating a product, similar to poppy and coca plants, not the street dealers, and the wealthy are the buyers / "users".

So if they are poor and eradicating a species off the face of the planet, then they should get a pass? They have the equipment and skills to hunt non-endangered animals which would provide food for themselves and their family. Excess meat could likely be traded or sold. Poaching is not a crime of necessity.

I just don't get it. That money has already been spent or guaranteed for the current leases. It's a sunk cost either way. If they end up not needing it that office space then, once those leases are up, that become a cost saving and improve the bottom line of corporate profits right?

Only thing I can think of is that a a considerable percentage of upper management are getting kick backs by property owners who can see what WFH policies mean to their business model, or there are a lot of managers that don't know how to evaluate employee performance based on their deliverables.

Not really sure what Gizmodo thinks that Reddit "won". They damaged their reputation, degraded the quality of their site, popularized competition, and embittered a significant portion of their volunteer labor force.

Their representatives do.

Electors, not representatives.

And guess what, their representatives don’t have to represent them. They can vote however they want.

That depends on the state. While there are no federal provisions on how an elector should vote, several states do have rules requiring them to follow the popular vote. Additionally, the popular vote is used to select which electors (a.k.a. which parties electors) are sent.

Fleek

Thankfully.

Good idea to share our definitions of boycott and protest. For me, a boycott is the attempt to remove yourself from contributing or supporting a situation, institution, or person. For example, not purchasing a product or paying for a service. A protest is actively speaking out against something and while it could involve putting yourself at physical risk, it does not have to. In my view, the people in this thread that have shared their discontent with Nestlé are taking part in a protest and those that have been willing and able to avoid purchasing Nestlé products are taking part in a boycott.

the problem, as has been demonstrated all over this thread, is that there are many people who simply can’t afford to do that (in money, or time, or for medical reasons or all of the above). They need essentials, and only shitty companies will sell them these essentials, they’re often not in a position to be dropping things completely, or even shopping around for other brands (99% of which are owned by companies just as bad as nestle anyway) because they’re already struggling to maintain the bare minimum and are too busy working however many jobs or struggling in other ways (like living in a food desert).

I think that my point was lost. I'm not suggesting that people do without essentials. If they are forced to do business they don't like, they can still speak up about their dissatisfaction of the situation (a.k.a. protest). Their story may encourage somebody else to do the same and maybe that other person will be in a position to skip the Hagen Daz or switch from Peligrino water to flat water or change their cat food from Friskies to another brand. Will they likely end up giving their money to another evil corporation? Yeah. Most likely. But sometimes it is about picking a lesser evil (and I hate using that term, but it fits). And, optimistically, maybe the voices speaking up will get another corporation or maybe even an activist organization will see that there is a need for alternatives. Ultimately, my point is that nothing is served by staying quiet and doing nothing.

Even if your words and actions have no impact and changes nothing, the act itself still holds significance and meaning.

If you’re going to use nestle’s atrocities, and by all means do, add them to a list of other atrocities companies committed for profit too, and use them all together to make the case against capitalism itself.

For the record: Fuck capitalism. I think it is a Ponzi scheme that thrives on the subjugation of the masses for the benefit of the few. Sadly, I have never encountered a system of governance that did not ultimately fall to that same demise. Even the more idealistic systems (e.g. socialism and communism) fall guilty to this once the community gets large enough. I feel that they fail because they are ultimately built on an idealistic view of humans and ignore that we are, as a whole, selfish, corrupt, and are destructive to everything we encounter. Are there exceptions? Yes, that's why small communities can make these ideologies work. Could we be better? Maybe, but I doubt it.

You are right about activism fatigue being real. I am a victim of it. I still speak out, but I am done with putting myself in harms way, thinking that the powers-that-be give a shit. I've shifted my energies to taking control of my life and usage of resources. For example, growing my own food and dealing directly with farmers, ranchers, and hunters for other food supplies. I'm far from where I want to be, but I continue to move to where I want to be.

I feel like you and I are very similar in our views. Not identical, and with some differences in our responses, but the core I feel that our beliefs are similar.

BTW: I do not think that you have come across as argumentative nor an ass (pretty sure you said something like that in a previous reply) and I have appreciated our exchange.