mojo_raisin @ mojo_raisin @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

321

Joined

1 yr. ago

Should the government put all beneficial substances in our water? Only some? Which ones? Why?

I don't want drugs in my water.

Why is it bullshit to not want your food to cause unnecessary suffering? If I have the choice of eating a burger from a cow that suffered it's whole life or one that was treated well, why would I not choose less suffering?

Oh! You're one of those who things we should all be vegan...not gonna happen for so so many reasons, so why not compromise and reduce suffering in the world?

Life eats life, that's how it works. Organisms evolved to eat meat are not inherently inhumane for following their biological imperative. Our factory farming system IS inhumane in that it causes unnecessary suffering, but that's a result of the scale of operations and our economic system.

The acidity of our stomach alone is clear evidence we are evolved to eat meat, combine that with our need for B12, our teeth, length of intestines relative to other herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores puts the nail in the coffin for the idea that we are not meant to eat meat.

we have careers, money, we buy our own houses and cars...

This is what the right wing is trying to put an end to so women have no choice but to stick with a man for survival.

Older I got more that stereotype showed a cultural hatred of independent women.

Yep, it's a method of cultural oppression and extremely effective. This is why I say the way to change the world is through cultural change, not fiat by state or revolution. We change the world by rejecting their culture and making our own.

If it makes sense to consider the artist's actions and morality, it makes just as much sense to consider that of the producers et. al.

That leaves us with virtually no content tho.

I'm an anarchist ( a bit of an outlier, I call myself anarcho-solarpunk), I'll try to answer, of course I can only speak for myself.

Sometimes anarchists right wing libertarian types sound similar and seem to have the same goals, and on surface level that has some truth. There's horseshoe theory that says that the far right and left are effectively the same.

But there are critical differences

Anarchists are typically motivated by empathy and sympathy. They want everyone to have freedom and view the state/government as a tool of oppression wielded by the elite. That without the state and capitalism society could take responsibility for itself and form communities based on the needs of the people rather than the desires of a hoarder class. And that to do so would take a lot of work, it wouldn''t just happen automatically when state/government is removed.

Right wing libertarian types on the other hand are motivated by greed and power. They want the government out of the way allowing them to exploit others and the environment without restriction, but most are disingenuous about even this. They believe this if they are winning, if not then it's ok for them to control the state to limit their enemies/competition.

I didn't read the article yet, but from the headline, this sounds like a group of right wing libertarian types who don't want to pay taxes and think not paying taxes and sabotaging the government through terrible right wing policy is an effective means to their end, they are wrong there too.

I've worked at both small companies as small as about 12, all the way to massive fortune 100 companies (as a trans woman). Big companies get you many perks and often a very nice campus. But I've had better experiences mostly at the small companies.

The "boys club" thing never materialized too much, coworkers were decent people and I made great friends Never had a problem being trans at work. But the size definitely affects culture. Large companies have a fake explicit (not bad words, I mean explicit as in well defined and stated) culture shoved down your throat, small companies tend to have an organically formed culture. Big companies often attract leaders with high levels of narcissism highly driven to succeed and you have to deal with their tantrums. Startups attract unique people, still driven but in a different way.

One thing to be aware of at small companies though, is that many of these companies were formed for the purpose of being acquired, so their goal isn't to be a cool company, it's to do whatever it takes to be an attractive acquisition target which often sucks.

Even in a small company, the CEO is either going to be busy doing other things not managing IT, if they do manage IT, they would be no different than any other boss.

Wow I'd never heard of anything like that before, that's pretty dang cool.

I like the way you think.

and the right candidates, but good candidates are indeed hard to come by.

Ya, I sometimes encourage running for office along with my encouragement to vote. It seems mostly only shitty people run for office, this needs to change.

“voting third party is throwing your vote away”? Where did we learn this?

It comes from an understanding of reality in a first past the post voting system. If you want a third option, focus on ranked choice voting and minimizing corporate control of media rather than promoting a losing strategy.

You know, it's not the "lazy" people that are causing the world's problems.

Makes me wonder what Diogenes would've said.

More of a liberal darling ya? Pretty sure the left is anti-pope in general.