Ookami38 @ Ookami38 @sh.itjust.works

Posts

3

Comments

1,209

Joined

2 yr. ago

There are legitimate reasons for the devs and Sony to want your psn account linked. It's also reasonable to not want to do so. Why not offer a compromise, like any healthy relationship, and allow, not force, account linking, with a little incentive? Where is the downside to either party?

Get back in your hole console peasant and Xbox shill

I don't, give me more amazing updates. Infinite updates.

And all of those social norms took time. Took small changes. We didn't just bring a bunch of slaves over, and one day say "nah this ain't right." We had a MASSIVE chain of events that led to, finally, enough people being done with it, and they started a war. We didn't just say "hey,black people shouldn't be forced to use different facilities", we had a massive chain of social events that shaped our cultural landscape, making it easier for people to do the right thing.

That's my point. It's not just a flip of the switch and it's done. It's small, incremental steps that win over people slowly. Just the fact that you bring up reduction at all is more evidence for my point. You have got to start small, if you want to see it through.

If it was as simple as you make it out to be, we'd already be in a utopia.

Let me ask you this - what, exactly, do you think my argument is?

Societal pressures are real, though. It doesn't matter that there's not a physical force making you do a certain thing. Humans are social animals. We're, from day 1, molded by the world we were born into. To claim that you can just deny all of those drives is, quite simply, arrogant.

Again, I want change. I want to make it as easy as possible for the individual to do the best they can. Beating them about the head, saying "well you can just choose not to eat meat!" Doesn't help that cause.

I don't see many people hating veganism. I see a lot of people hating vegans pushing their ideology when it wasn't asked for. The simple truth is that every person has different ideologies, beliefs, priorities, and ethical systems, and what makes perfect sense to one person sounds over-prohibitive, and any attempt at dialogue to find a middle ground ends with a bunch of moral posturing.

You're right. At the end of the day, your lifestyle is your choice. I'm merely pointing out that there are a LOT of pressures keeping people stuck in the lifestyle they're in. Those pressures are real, and if you want to effect change, it's better to target them, rather than the individual.

Right. Part of my point. We have taken great efforts to make beef cheap, and to bolster the supply. With all of this effort, it really isn't a surprise your average person is going to choose beef.

I'd propose slowly increasing subsidies to beef alternatives, and then once those are to the same level of affordableness and you've got some adoption, start cutting beef subsidies. Make the transition slow and painless, more people will stick to it.

Right. So maybe go back to the last paragraph, admit you probably missed the potential neurodivergency, and show some humility. Or double down and continue to offer bad advice.

No one here has said just let the kid eat what they want. Not OP, not me, not anyone else. We all want the kid to eat a better diet. That's literally the purpose of this thread.

The problem is that, for non-typical situations, typical solutions don't work. And, even for typical situations, starvation isn't the best option. We're trying to explore other possibilities, rather than the traditional ones, and being told "force the kid, you're the parent" is at best tone deaf.

We use oil and gas because it's the option that has been made most available to us. This isn't an individual problem. As long as the alternatives are prohibitively expensive for the average person, in terms of time, money, availability, etc, then we're going to always have the bulk of people choosing the easiest option.

We all have so much to worry about each day, trying to fit biking to my job a 45 minute drive away just isn't feasible. The options for changing that are either we go fuckin full on anarchy, burn the system down, and start anew, or slowly, systematically. Set an easily achievable baseline the average person can work to adopt, encourage it via subsidization and education, and give it time.

It's a bit of both. We started out just liking beef, for all the reasons above - easy to grow, good bioavailability, tasty, etc. From there, we built our society up, became capitalists, and started really honing in on efficiency, because more efficiency is more money. Now cows are everywhere and beef is cheap.

Right now beef is pretty much the cheapest protein option readily available, and that I actually know how to prepare. Both of those come from the supply being huge, our culture being built around meat eating, it just kinda being the way we are.

This isn't an individual problem to solve. No amount of vegans voting with their wallet is going to redirect the monumental ship that is our culture. We need subsidization on non-meat options, more ubiquitous supply, and more practice with the style of cuisine if we ever hope to make changes that stick.

How about we don't engage in reasonable, healthy discussion and instead throw shit?

Yup. Each one of us, for some reason or another. Welcome to the club, asshole ❤️

I'd advise you proof read future questions then. Your initial question came across as very dismissive and condescending.

Problem is, withholding food is abuse, period. You're telling someone who doesn't have the same neurological capacities you do to either starve or eat something they very likely have a visceral reaction to.

The other poster mentioned they missed the 'potentially autistic' part. While withholding food is abusive regardless,this for sure exacerbates the issues. I suspect you may have missed that part as well. It's okay, just have some humility to step back and say so. Or keep advocating for old school abusive parenting.

I'd rather live with absolutely nothing than die forced to work for something I don't care about for an owner I've never seen not allowed to drink water that's right there, or take a break during the hottest parts of the day.

Burn it down often isn't literal. They mean walk away, disrupt operations, make it impossible to continue. It won't be easy, for sure, but often, advocating for one's self hurts now to save a lot of pain in the future.

I'd guess that a big part of the reason we don't see more people burning it down is this exact sentiment. People saying it won't solve all your problems. It won't be easy. It isn't possible. Maybe we should start empowering people. Do these things. Burn it. For us all.

No.

That's the nature of collaborative problem solving though. I've proposed some dumb ideas before. I'm sure you have too. There's nothing wrong with stupid ideas being proposed. The issues arise when you either are surrounded by yes-men or are too forceful and ignore the advice of everyone else.

It's not even that more people get in the way. A cake, and a baby, and in some ways dev work, take a set amount of time under which you just can't do, or you get an undercooked baby, or a miscarried cake.

The idea is that AM is more rugged, it'll be up when other more common forms of emergency communication is down. Internet and TV are both fragile, relatively speaking. FM covers less range. So yeah, while few people use it actively, when a true crisis hits, it's nice to have a stable fallback. ;)