“I’m going to vote to help the vast majority of people the majority of the time,” Vindman told the crowd, according to the Advocate. “Is it going to help everybody? No.”
Dang, this reminds me of what I was saying two years ago:
If a minority group like Palestinians can be sacrificed for the sake of winning an election, then the same can and will be done for any minority group that becomes seen as an electoral liability. The only way for any minority, but especially one as small as trans people, to really achieve security is through solidarity, an alliance of the vulnerable that treats an offense against one as an offense against all. Right now, there might be cis gays watching the democrats blame trans people and thinking that they’ll be safe, but that’s not guaranteed at all.
I'm just saying, if you're willing to accept excuses like, "Palestine isn't on the ballot this year" then you'll readily accept excuses like "trans rights aren't on the ballot" and so on, until there's no one left to stand up for you.
As an evil authoritarian tankie, this episode made perfect sense to me 😉
The old man had a knee-jerk opposition and lack of trust to any form of government or authority, understandably developed from living under the fascist occupation, but now extended to the fledgeling revolutionary government, which could not survive without cooperation and buy-in from the people. It was necessary for the Bejorans to adapt from the role of rebels to other roles. We see in other episodes Bejorans who can't or won't do this (the Maquis).
The whole point of overthrowing the Cardassians was not "blowing things up is fun and cool" nor was it "all governments are bad and individualism is good." That specific government was bad, and the point was to set up a new government that could work for the benefit of the Bejoran people, and protect their safety and interests. Kira threads the needle between freedom fighter and civil servant, burning down the old order and building up the new one with equal resolve and determination.
By living with the old man, Kira showed that she understood him, that she felt similar things to him, that she wasn't just a pencil pusher who didn't care whose lives got ruined in the name of profits and efficiency and understood the weight of what she was telling him. But she also showed that, even from that perspective, she was still determined to get the reactor built. Ultimately, the decision she makes is forceful, authoritarian, even. But she also demonstrates by example how someone who is like the old man could arrive at her position. She is not only forcing him, but also leading by example, showing him that if she can switch gears to the changing conditions, he can too.
That willingness to build up after, to cooperate and ensure that a new peace can last, that is what separates the revolutionary from the rebel (the Maquis), or the individualist (the old man).
Obama/Bernie/Trump voters are very fringe, despite the media's attempts to suggest otherwise. There were more Clinton voters who went Republican when Obama won the primary in 2008.
I've fallen off a bit on it, but Go. The amount of complexity that emerges from simple rules, the aesthetic forms that emerge, as if both players are collaborating on a work of art. To an experienced player, each stone has a meaning, in it's own language, and you can almost hear them speaking. There are so many ways to approach the game, a player's personality reveals itself on the Go board, and any flaw in one's way of thinking, anything you need to work on, comes out on the board like looking into a mental mirror.
I'm actually heading out to a tournament now, and I'm super rusty but I think I'm starting to rediscover my interest in it.
And once again, this is an argument against factory farming and inhumane practices, not farming and domestication in general.
Yes, because that's what 99% of the decisions of 99% of people involve. Just because it's theoretically possible to imagine a situation where these things are done ethically doesn't mean that's actually an option that is practically available.
I am not particularly interested in criticizing small farms with relatively ethical practices. My position, from my original comment, is, "But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?"
Is there a hypothetical situation where it's ethical to kill an innocent person?Suppose some space aliens say they'll destroy the world with a giant laser if you don't. That hypothetical does not change the fact that not killing innocent people is still a good general rule in the vast majority of situations you'll actually encounter in life. To throw out all reservations against murder just because of that hypothetical would be making a rule from the exception.
Likewise, I'm sure you can imagine a hypothetical situation where it's ethical to consume animal products, but unless that situation is an actual, real thing in your life, that you've looked into to verify is the case (which the example of eggs in Germany makes me skeptical of), then what you're doing is throwing out a generally good rule based on an unrealistic hypothetical, just because following the rule would be inconvenient.
Again, it's a matter of whether you're looking at things in the abstract, or in terms of how things actually work.
Take eggs for example. Eggs aren't just a byproduct of having chickens around, there are specific breeds that are dedicated to egg-laying. Because only a small number of males are needed for reproduction, most male chicks are put on a conveyor and ground to death. While I can't claim to be an expert in German laws, I did find that German courts have allowed this practice.
It's a similar story with milk. Because dairy cows are a different breed, male calves are typically slaughtered at birth. Dairy cows are kept in a constant state of pregnancy, suffer the stress of being separated from their young, and are killed as soon as the milk slows down, typically a quarter of their natural lifespans. Dairy is also similarly bad for the environment as beef, and there are widely available plant-based substitutes like oat milk that taste just as good, if not better.
No matter what animal product we're talking about, maximization of profits is almost always going to involve cruelty, environmental harm, and selective breeding to the point that any expectations about natural by-products aren't true. Even with regulations (which can be difficult to enact effectively), there are tradeoffs: limiting cruelty can increase environmental impact (as well as the price). If animal products were appropriately priced based on offsetting the harm they cause, they would be unable to compete against plant-based alternatives.
The way I see it, the tiny fraction of meat that's produced ethically should go to the tiny fraction of people with dietary restrictions that require meat.
The vast majority of people are not going out to investigate small farms to see if their practices are ethical. They are buying meat from a grocery store, and if they consider it at all, they might pick one with a label slapped on like "organic," completely meaningless thanks to lobbying.
Practically speaking, it is almost always a choice between torture products and nothing.
To be fair Obama did try to do it but Congress screwed him.
To be fair to Congress, the 90 senators who voted against it in 2009 included Bernie Sanders and other progressives. Obama attempted to fulfill only the letter of the promise of closing Guantanamo, by simply relocating the detainees to American soil. This risked creating a firmer legal precedent that could enable the practices to be expanded across the country.
The best thing the left can do is not take the bait and be diligent in steering the conversation back to the day to day economic issues that actually affect the majority of working class people.
Sure, it shouldn't be the focus of a campaign, but this strategy of caving to the right's BS rhetoric simply does not work.
First off, it legitimizes their positions, when even democrats start spouting transphobic nonsense, it makes it seem like there's legitimate concerns and a debate to be had, when in reality it's just these far-right weirdos and conspiracy theorists talking nonsense.
Second, you're concerned about alienating people for the sake of a small segment of the population, but by caving to the right's rhetoric, you are not only alienating trans people but also allies, which is discussed in the article. How does that number actually compare to the number of people for whom trans acceptance is a deal breaker, but who aren't just going to vote republican regardless?
Third, this does not stop at trans people, and certainly not at trans kids. Once they have demonstrated that they can demonize (and eventually exterminate) trans people, next they will come for other gay people. Trans bathroom bans have often led to cis lesbians being harassed because they don't "look feminine enough." The government is now talking about screening testosterone levels in cis men in the military.
Where will be in 20 years? Will cis men with long hair be forced to cut it off? Will women only be permitted to wear skirts?
These freaks are living in the 1800s, their values and agendas are absolutely not in line with the average person. But, they are able to advance their agenda by selling it one small step at a time, and they're able to keep taking steps because the democrats keep caving and accommodating them, allowing them to redraw the line.
Where exactly is your line? Is there one? Or will you hold on to this logic of "it's not worth standing up for such a small minority" all the way to the gas chambers?
Weird to only make that distinction for Christians, as if it's the only religion with lofty ideals. An extremist Muslim who's fervently committed to jihad would be someone who's really dedicated to self-control, charity, and protecting the vulnerable.
I could just be paranoid but I’m fairly convinced the responses weren’t from patriotic citizens. I think they were paid trolls or bots
Possibly. Me personally, I'm not getting paid to post. Not yet. I'm working up to that. Eventually, I plan to print out pro-China comments I've made and fax them to the Chinese embassy in the hopes that they'll hire me. For now, I'm just padding out my CV.
This whole conspiracy theory is so bonkers. Lemmy was created by communists. You look inside, you find communists, and then it's all this "What!? People who disagree with me!? On the internet!?!?!? Impossible! They must be paid secret agents!!!!"
If you want to avoid the existential horror of realizing that people exist with different views from you, different instances have different user experiences, and you're free to choose one that doesn't federate with communists.
Dang, this reminds me of what I was saying two years ago:
I'm just saying, if you're willing to accept excuses like, "Palestine isn't on the ballot this year" then you'll readily accept excuses like "trans rights aren't on the ballot" and so on, until there's no one left to stand up for you.
Reject trolley problem thinking.