Signtist @ Signtist @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

I've seen this image floating around for a while, which breaks down the reasoning - or lack thereof in certain media - pretty well.

Eh, it's just removing unnecessary words as most headlines do. "Cheney says Republicans (that are) against Trump but (are) not backing Harris (are) ‘not (doing) enough’"

My groups usually think of them as a powerful fey creature who sometimes just whisks people away for an indeterminate amount of time, only to bring them back later.

A lot of cops are so high strung that you essentially have to pretend you're having the time of your life while interacting with them - any nervousness or annoyance is taken to mean that you're potentially a violent criminal who could kill them at any moment.

Just the realization that a woman holding a pot of hot water could hypothetically use it as a weapon, however unlikely it was in this scenario, was enough to make him instinctively shoot with only minor notice that still did nothing to prevent him from killing her even as she began cowering and apologizing.

This is the culture we've allowed the police to build in this country; the job is dangerous, and they're only human, so they believe they should be forgiven for being scared regardless of the situation, and should be forgiven for taking drastic measures while they're scared.

I mean, most of them probably became judges specifically to gain the power to choose who needs to follow what laws - as well as the profitable position that puts them in for rich criminals who don't want to go to jail.

🧅^- anion

Voting is about choosing good candidates well before it gets pared down to 2 options. It's about choosing a good local government, choosing good representatives, choosing good senators. If the only thing you care about is the President, then you'll never have a good pool of options from which the parties will pick a presidential candidate. They're not on our side - it's our job to force their hand with a deck stacked with good candidates. But only the people who pay attention to politics well before election year get to have a say in stuff like that.

Okay, and how do you plan to get them into the hearts and minds of around 50% of the population in the next 2 months, when the vast majority haven't even heard of her? It's not enough to have someone who could be a good president, you also need to get people to vote for them. If you want most of the population to vote for someone, they need to be aware of them as a viable option years beforehand.

I agree that the 2 choices are pawns of the rich, but even if every person who knew about Claudia voted for her, she wouldn't even get enough votes for her to make the news, much less win. We're talking about tens of millions of people voting in unison for an election win to happen in this country. At this stage in the game, there are only 2 candidates with that kind of draw power. If you want to focus on the 2028 election (assuming there is one, since there clearly won't be if Trump wins) to get a 3rd viable candidate on that ballot, that's a noble plan, but by now this election's potential winners are already down to 2.

Voting isn't about closing your eyes and saying "I want someone good to win!" It's about assessing which people might actually win, and voting for the one that best aligns with your views, however loosely. It's about strategy. If you want to change that, you need to build national presence in the name of your preferred candidate, and you need to start years ahead of the elections. Big changes don't happen at the ballot, they happen during the campaigning stage and beforehand. If your candidate isn't on the news every day leading up to the election, most voters won't even know they're an option.

I put my alarm far enough away that I need to get up to turn it off. By then I'm already out of bed, which is otherwise the hardest part for me by far.

My mom died of cancer a few months ago because she was convinced that a combination of sunlight's natural vibrational frequency and some expensive "medical" herbal teas would cure her. Placebos affect people, but if you let them believe that they're an alternative to actual science and medicine, then they'll use them as such.

Again, selective breeding suffers from the same issue of introducing changes that can be detrimental to the organism itself and its place in the balance of the environment. Look at dog breeding as an example. Pugs were bred for a specific look, and that inadvertently caused them to have severe breathing issues. Dachshunds are another example, with many developing spinal issues over time. The difference, as I said before, is the speed; making a change causes unintended side effects - when you make a huge change quickly, it will produce more side effects than making a small change slowly will.

And... again... as I already said... there should be limitations to prevent rolling out new GMOs without specific testing for safety, both in a lab for potential problems to the organism or - in the event of an agricultural product - its consumers, as well as in the environment as a whole, to determine how it may affect the ecology if and when it is introduced. It may take decades to notice changes if the GMO is released immediately after being developed, but if testing protocols are made and followed, we should have no problem quickly spotting any issues before the organism is rolled out into the world.

Just like newly developed medicines need to go through rigorous testing to prevent things like the Thalidomide scandal that caused an immense amount of birth defects due to lax testing, new GMO's will need to be tested as well. But, just like you likely understand the benefits of medicine for helping people suffering from various diseases, GMO's can provide the same level of benefit to people suffering from malnutrition, among a wide range of other positive uses. The key is to study new developments to the point where we can spot and address issues. Throwing away the technology as a whole is not the answer.

GMO's trace back further than that - even when we're specifically talking about modern methods. The first Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly genetics experiments happened in 1910, though it took a while for us to begin actually creating GMO strains; the first study I know of that did so was in 1927 by Hermann J. Muller, using x-rays to purposefully induce mutations. But ultimately, it doesn't matter who was the first to purposefully modify the genetics of an organism, modern or otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that we can use, have used, and should use genetic modification for beneficial purposes. Again, GMO's are neutral; it just means an organism was purposefully modified on a genetic level by humans - it's the purpose itself that determines whether its good or bad. People will use it for bad reasons just like any technology, and we should stop them, but that doesn't mean we should shun the technology itself when genetic modifications have been used beneficially for millennia, and modern techniques are just as capable of producing incredibly beneficial changes as they are the detrimental ones everyone's scared of.

Monsanto creates GMOs based on nothing but greed - they have complete disregard for the environmental impact of the wanton use of pesticides that their resistant strains encourage. But that's just one GMO application - other crops use genetic modification to produce greater yields or better nutritional value.

Golden rice is a great GMO that can bring vitamin C and other essential nutrients to previously-deficient areas of the world, but it keeps getting delayed and disrupted by people who think that the reason Monsanto is terrible is because they make GMO's, rather than their sketchy business and science practices they use. GMO's as a whole are neutral, and there are amazing benefits we can get from them if we understand the difference between good and bad use of genetic modification.

OP's post points out that beneficial old-fashioned GMO creation through use of selective breeding has immensely improved agricultural yield from the original source - the process of using our own observations to modify organisms on a genetic level is not new, and without it, we wouldn't be where we are now as a species.

The speed is substantial, yes. That was my point. They are essentially the same; one simply uses the organism's own natural genetic variation mechanisms, while the other introduces new variations manually. Yes, that is a difference that requires separation of the two in certain circumstances, but not when it comes to whether or not we've genetically modified all strains of modern agricultural corn, GMO-labeled or not.

Claiming selective breeding is the same as producing a GMO is like saying an eagle and a Boeing 747 are both utilizing mechanisms that allow them to fly, which is true.

Sure, but you could selectively breed rabbits for 1,000,000 years and get a glow in the dark rabbit; GFP is just a protein like any other - if you painstakingly selectively breed for a specific DNA sequence, you'll eventually get it regardless of your starting genetic pool. Classic selective breeding is a form of genetic modification - modern genetic modification methods are just way faster.

I agree that we don't currently know enough about genetics to utilize genetic modification without unforeseen side effects, and so there should be limitations on what we're able to genetically modify until we can show that we understand it well enough to meaningfully minimize potential issues, but those same issues occur with selective breeding - they're, again, just slower.

I realized that later, yeah. That's not something that a kid would usually realize is bad on their own, though; if it's something you and everyone you know has always done, most people wouldn't think to question it.

For me it was when I was around 8 or 9 and met someone from Kenya. They could speak perfect English, wore normal clothes, and talked about having electricity. I'd literally never been told that those things existed in Africa - every reference to that continent only talked about tribes and jungles, save for Egypt which only talked about ruins and deserts. I asked around and found that most of the rest of the world has the same stuff we have, and most countries have a functioning government. I was so confused - why were we the country of freedom when everyone else has the same thing?

At the time I just assumed that there was something I was missing, or maybe the rest of the world just caught up to our idea, but eventually I came to the conclusion that they tell us we're the country of freedom - and keep our studies of other countries to a minimum when we're young - so that we can internalize the rhetoric that our country is the best before we find out that most other countries about the same, and often better in certain ways.

Because if you look closely, there's some light blue blobs near the top shaped like the great lakes.

...yeah, that's what I'm saying. Maybe he's got no money, or keeps it in a bank with no interest for some weird reason, but the more likely scenario is that he has a lot of money he doesn't want to make public. If he's got so much money that it benefits him more to keep it hidden than to let it publicly gain interest, then he's going to be willing to hand some of it off to a corrupt public official to prevent an investigation.

If a real investigation were done, then there would be no reason for him to bribe anyone, which is the more important thing for the vast majority of the government, so they have no reason to do an investigation. I'd like them to, but my preferences aren't going to matter to the guy who only took the job of an investigator for the bribery money. If anything, they'll just do a sham investigation so that they can say "nope, nothing" while walking away with their pockets full of cash.

It's been a long time since this country meaningfully punished a rich man for doing something wrong.