![](/static/f79995a8/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/gWmVEUZ94Z.png)
I agree, and understand change takes time. But to be clear, I’m saying advocating for half measures is relatively ineffective, not that half measures themselves have no effect.
I agree, and understand change takes time. But to be clear, I’m saying advocating for half measures is relatively ineffective, not that half measures themselves have no effect.
Really? That’s how things play out in reality for sure, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be calling for anything less than a complete abolition of animal exploitation and cruelty. But let’s try it with some social movement that’s often discussed on Lemmy to be sure. Do you think this is a good take:
“You shouldn’t call for an end to the genocide in Gaza, that’s unrealistic. Just stick to ‘Israel should try and kill fewer Palestinians.’ Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.”
The problem of advocating for half measures is that you don’t properly communicate that the behavior in question is unacceptable. It sends a mixed message: “It’s bad and you shouldn’t do it, but it’s still OK to do a little.”
If you can’t understand the difference between structure and content, there’s no point in discussing further.
I don’t mean to equate anything here, but do you think that would have been an effective strategy for social change in other movements?
Like: “What if we just did a little slavery? It’ll be much easier to convince slave owners to give up slavery if they got used to having just a few slaves.”
Do you think that would have been an effective strategy instead of calling for complete abolition?
Once again, I’m not trying to draw a comparison here, you could substitute any past social movement, but the logical structure should hold regardless.
For viewers in the developed west, “there’s plenty of stuff that we can do as individuals,” said Cowperthwaite: eat less meat, reduce food waste, buy less.
Disappointing the directors don’t fully reject consumption of animals, but not surprising since we can’t even covince people to wear a mask when they’re sick.
Haha, yeah, that’s why I said it’s my diplomatic answer, as it doesn’t utterly reject a capitalist framework.
Here’s my mildly diplomatic answer that’d probably get tossed:
Piracy has become a plague on our society, but there’s a more sinister cause to it. The average labourer can hardly afford to pay the same fee to access culture that the wealthy person can, and this has caused a significant and justified uptick in piracy.
This situation can be averted by increasing minimum wages and supporting universal basic income. If everyone knew they could at least make ends meet, they’d have some left over to pay for the culture that mattered to them.
Yes! Or if you keep going down south, you can go through Hiroshima to Fukuoka, then you can take the ferry over to Busan. There are sooooo many cool historic sites all over the place.
Orca gang, rise up.
In other news, Boeing’s 10 latest whistleblowers have joined a death cult and committed mass suicide. Strangely, all managed to shoot themselves twice in the back of the head. Several US judges have been overheard quipping about how strange these coincidences were, but seemed to be nonplussed.
What a strange mentality. When I pay for things I want, I’m generally happy to support the creator. If others can’t, why would I be upset if they get the product for free? It means more people can also enjoy the thing I like.
It’s such a crab bucket mentality, I couldn’t imagine living life being constantly bitter.
Likewise. They won’t, though. They’ll back down because, well, they’re not that dumb. (But also not that smart.)
If there’s no legal basis for it, they should move to add some sort of reparations system that would allow it to international law as consequence of offensive wars. Ofc, the US would probably wouldn’t be terribly interested in that.
I don’t know the laws that well, but there is a distinction in Canadian law between uploading and downloading. I’m not entirely sure how applicable to torrenting that is, but I think there’s a reasonable argument that if you are the original uploader, you must have uploaded the content in it’s entirety, whereas that’s not necessarily true for anyone else downloading the torrent, and certainly not provably so.
I think that’s not necessarily true. There’s certainly some good reasons to have a distinction between the original uploader and all the rest of the additional seeders. It’s going to come down to local law.
An analogy is if you buy some illicit substance and split it up with a few friends who pay you their share. Whether or not your local authorities considers you an illegal drug dealer could be highly dependent on scale, profitability, frequency, clientele, etc. Those details could be the difference between a slap on the wrist and some hard time.
GReader was so good, now it’s just another ghost in Google’s graveyard. :( My guess is that they killed it because it was kinda in the same sphere as Google News.
This so much. I’ve had dogs snarling at me, and the owner is like “Oh, don’t worry, he’s friendly.” Like no, he’s friendly towards people he knows, not random strangers!
This got severely exacerbated by the pandemic too. A lot of people who had zero business having a dog found themselves with a bit too much free time and decided a new dog was the solution.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, but if you get a dog as a quick fix to your own problems without putting a LOT of thought into it first, you might not be the best person to have a dog.
Bastardized version of the name of a Sumerian god, referenced heavily in Snowcrash by Neil Stephenson.
Some of those that work forces…
In 2009, CNN’s current CEO was called the 65th most powerful person in the world by Forbes.
I wonder if he’d have any financial incentive one way or the other?