Well there are certain features needed for a plant to get that big. So those features had to evolve independently each time which is a bit interesting. Wood is the famous example.
It just goes to show that the structure and context matters a lot to how an organization functions. Even small organizations need to be set up with the right principles in order to function well.
Tucker Carlson doesn’t believe in anything. He’s a pure opportunist. This suggests the cracks are appearing in the Trump coalition, that such narratives can start to appeal to his audience though.
I think people are a bit too quick to pin everything on aipac. But you don’t have a state apparatus that’s so dedicated to a policy without multiple reinforcing mechanisms. It’s also anti-Arab racism, it’s also realpolitik and imperial considerations, it’s also the fundamentalist Christian death cult, it’s also the left’s inability to organize a coherent and appealing message, it’s American apathy, fear, and so on.
The owners don’t control every decision made by every writer or editor, but it’s true that they do have excessive influence and power to kill some stories or promote others.
But I meant how does this article in particular make liberals and leftists fight?
I see this article as a growing shift in tone from liberals towards a greater skepticism and criticism of Israeli actions. This would mean they’d align better with leftists, not worse.
I guess I’m specifically addressing the consent argument which I find very stupid. If you believe that future children will be subjected to horrible suffering, then it would make sense to abstain. But that’s not the main anti-natalist argument I’ve seen.
But I will say despite the popularity of doomerism I don’t think there’s much reason to think human life will be much worse overall than it was in the past. There will be incredible challenges and incredible joys and triumphs, just as there always has been. So this is more of a factual question, and I think it’s pretty clear on the facts that most people will continue living rewarding lives for the foreseeable future.
There are a lot of good rank and file journalists at NYT, and they have resisted attempts by the higher-ups to censor them. So there has been both bad and good coverage on this topic as a result.
Not really. This is the same pants-on-head level reasoning that leads people to oppose medical procedures on animals or even suggest that we should kill them to avoid suffering merely because they can’t consent to anything. Just because they can’t consent doesn’t mean we can’t infer what their interests are.
Most of these people are just depressed and universalize that experience onto everyone else. But the reality is that most people are glad they were born, and parents can reasonably predict how the lives of their children will be. People who can’t provide a good environment for their kids should abstain, but I would even argue that for those who can, having kids is morally good since it brings the joys of life to more people.
Give the propaganda time to work. They’ll come around. Trump is these people’s whole identities, once he has a chance to tell them what to think, they’ll change their minds.
Eh if you look at it as a hobby it's not so bad. My only issue is that it rests on a certain mythology that you'll survive collapse by holing up in some bunker by yourself which is complete nonsense. Strong community bonds will help people survive difficult times, not isolation.
Did you appeal? Their AI just flags random shit that’s sort of adjacent to things they don’t like. I got a warning for using an analogy that included vandalism but it was reversed on appeal so it could be worth asking if you want to continue posting there.
Or just hang out here. Some communities are lacking but plenty of Linux talk from what I’ve seen.
Did you read the definition above? None of this is relevant. At this point I can only assume this is an issue of willful ignorance.
Hamas’s actions have not been notably different towards civilians and soldiers they hold captive. Both are treated as hostages. There is really nothing further to discuss, and I already mentioned my view on Israeli hostages above as well.
It’s entirely possible to use POWs as hostages. They aren’t mutually exclusive categories. One has to look at the statements and behavior of the actors involved to assess their motivations. Is it merely to reduce enemy fighting forces or are they also used as leverage? Hamas’s actions and statements make it clear in this case that they are hostages.
Of course, Hamas also took non-combatants hostage so I don’t see why you are willing to die on this hill, it’s incontrovertible that they do take hostages.
Hostages are defined by their usage as pawns by their captors. Whether they are soldiers, children, or guinea pigs has little relevance to that.
Also, I would add that imprisoning people is almost always wrong, so the distinction between hostage and prisoner isn’t as morally significant as mainstream society believes.
LibertyLizard @ LibertyLizard @slrpnk.net Posts 18Comments 2,283Joined 2 yr. ago
Well there are certain features needed for a plant to get that big. So those features had to evolve independently each time which is a bit interesting. Wood is the famous example.