Yes, ACAB. Any actions taken by the police are for either protecting the interests of the wealthy and powerful, enforcing traditional/societal norms, or they’re basically a PR stunt. A terrorist attack in New York would potentially harm wealthy people, not to mention Wall Street and the larger economy. so it had to be stopped.
It should be illegal to profit from the sale of a living being. It’s slavery, pure and simple.
Your point was that we judge the harm of a procedure proportional to its benefits, basically. I don’t really get why you felt the need. Do you support the use of these procedures such as tail/ear docking?
I don’t think that is a fully-satisfying conclusion. If it held up to scrutiny, then we would also curtail the rights of the elderly in the same way, which in the overwhelming majority of cases we do not. We would do the same for people with relevant disabilities, which again in the majority of cases, we do not.
If someone proposed removing the right to vote from people with mental disabilities to “protect the mentally weak from the strong”, I’d like to think that we’d all see the problems with that. Why do we not feel the same way about the disenfranchisement of younger people?
We put arbitrary age limitations on seemingly everything, from voting to watching a movie. When we have no age limits on something, stories always come up about a young kid who is capable and competent.
So why do we even have those age limits? We have adults of 30+ who are way more immature than some 12 year olds. Just seems like needless limitation on the rights of kids.
The real exception to this I suppose are things like age limits on joining the military or giving consent.
Yeah that’s one of those excuses I was talking about. Everyone always consumes animal products from their uncle’s farm. They never, ever buy animal products from the store, or from a restaurant, or fast food, or whatever. Nope. All the animal products you consume are 100% from your uncle’s farm and they’re all mega happy, and you know them all by name!
lol
hello, I’m a vegan, I try not to annoy people because I know we’re all going through a lot of shit, but since you asked, you should know: the level of suffering caused by the animal agriculture industry is so extreme and horrific. Like, think of the worst torture imaginable, and it’s worse. And they subject thinking, feeling beings to that. Think about how angry you would feel if you saw someone abusing a dog. Now imagine that on a global, mass-production scale.
The problem is that human brain is really good at protecting itself from having to deal with the mental anguish of knowing that you’re responsible for suffering, so you’ll come up with any number of reasons to excuse your behaviour - it’s natural, it’s the circle of life, etc. etc. but that’s all just excuses. You let other living being suffer so badly because you like how they taste, and you can either accept that fact or you can change.
Please explain why AIPAC is more of a threat than other PACs
Why are you only concerned about AIPAC’s money and not the billions of dollars from thousands of other PACs?
I’m an anarchist, and Musk’s behaviour is the farthest possible thing from anarchy. Anarchism is all about working together to build a better world where everyone has all of their needs met, not being a selfish, caustic, aggressive asshole. Elon would have no chance of getting consensus to join any commune anywhere in the world. Unless there’s some insane libertarian commune somewhere.
Problems like these are solved by expanding supply. It doesn’t really work to reduce demand.
This smacks of accelerationist rhetoric to me. We absolutely can help people to understand that electoralism doesn’t work without them having to experience some sort of revelatory moment. But it needs us to log off and talk to people in real life.
So it’s nothing to do with what’s natural then, is it? Or you’d object to chicken cat food. And let’s not forget that everyone has also seen cats eat grass. Is it possible that you don’t really know what the nutritional needs are for cats and that you’re just arguing based on your ideological beliefs, rather than the best interests of cats? Maybe so you can feel good about yourself, and your own diet?
That’s all completely aside from the fact that it is completely irrelevant. Whether or not you disagree with some random internet vegan should have no bearing on how you judge the behaviour of a moderator abusing their power to enforce their individual opinions upon Lemmy communities.
C’mon mate, this is decades old fossil fuel industry propaganda - making people blame themselves for the mess they got us all into. There’s no benefit from beating ourselves up - as individuals we hold no power over the industry. We need to work together and build an organised movement if we want to change things, we can’t change our behaviour individually to change the system.
Not only is your point irrelevant - two wrongs don’t make a right - but I have to ask… you know cats don’t “naturally” eat chicken or tuna either, right? And they especially don’t naturally eat canned food.
There is a photograph which accompanies the article of one of the protesters holding a placard which reads, “this is fascism”.
I feel like it’s totally wrong to apply such a broad generalisation (“They don’t want the [genocide] to stop”) to such a group of people. The people of Israel are not a monolith, and I know for a fact that there are those in Israel who have been protesting their genocidal policies the whole time. It seems very plausible to me that a good number of the protesters calling for an end to the current violence will be opposed to the whole settler-colonialist project, in the same way that I wholeheartedly despise the state of the country that I was born in.
I have no problem with people making mistakes, accidentally suspending an account for example, it happens.
This wasn’t an accident. The admin intentionally deleted posts just because he personally disagreed with them and removed moderators because he disagreed with them.
When you are in a position of authority and you have power over others, if you give in to that urge to use that power for your own benefit to the detriment of others, even once, you will do it again. It is seductive and easy. This is just human psychology. It’s how authoritarianism thrives.
By allowing a corrupt admin to remain, the admin team have demonstrated that they find that behaviour at least somewhat acceptable, and therefore there’s no reason to learn and grow, except to learn how far you can go before there’s backlash.
To have their admin powers revoked, obviously.
As soon as someone in a position of power shows their willingness to use that power to further their own agenda in any way, rather than for the benefit of the community, they should immediately and unequivocally have that power withdrawn.
Rooki has showed us all who he is, and what he is willing to do with power. He has not felt any consequences. In future, he’ll just be more cautious with how he abuses his power.
The reality is that this idea wouldn’t really fix any of the actual issues in academia. The only thing that would fix the problems with science is the end of capitalism.