Riiiight, that's why on a lemmygrad post literally defending Russian war camps as western propaganda (and how the oppression of Uyghurs was completely fabricated) I got downvoted to hell for even suggesting that China was complicit in Uyghur ethnic cleansing, as if they're not de facto enforcing Putonghua onto all ethnic groups within its territory - but they said it's fine since why is teaching people skills and languages bad...

I'm sure you'd make the same argument that it's actually to the benefit of a third of African counties, India and the Philippines for their official language to be English. See the British empire just wanted to teach them languages and free market skills so they could escape their "poverty and backwardness" (the literal words the Chinese gov uses for Xinjiang residents) - so I don't see how your point about "none fully support Russia" stands when hardcore MLs are literally full out defending any actions Russia and China take as not only justified but morally good...

I know I'll get downvoted for this but I believe if you're vegan you really shouldn't have pets.

Having a pet means claiming total control over another sentient being's existence - deciding where they live, what they eat, their medical care, whether and with whom they can breed, and even when they die.

The usual justifications (they're happy, well-cared for, etc) still don't resolve the power imbalance. If keeping a human locked up from birth would be fucked up even if they were happy and loved you, then having that same level of control over an animal's life can't be ethical either.

The fact that we bred them to be dependent doesn't justify continuing a cycle of exploitation - it just highlights how deep the ethical problem goes.

PS. Caveat is injured wildlife that is being rehabilitated to be released back into the wild or animals that would find it literally impossible to survive on their own - ie end-of-life care or strays that will be euthanized - tho this means you should be actively dismantling the pet industry as well instead of just having pets but with an "ethical" undertone

the demo is really trippy - very dreamlike - obvs not an actual game but interesting to think what could be achieved if it learned about object permanence for example

One of the recent climate papers on the topic (from accredited researchers but not yet peer reviewed) estimates "The earliest year (mean 10% percentile level) for a potential AMOC collapse is 2037 and the latest year (mean 90% percentile level) is 2064" and "Applying the same procedure to SODA and GLORYS results in 91% and 92% collapse probabilities before 2050, respectively" - which if proven to be even remotely true is not just concerning but actually apocalyptical - it means mainland Europe might begin seeing +40 summers and -20 winters in the next 20-30 years - which makes it practically impossible to develop infrastructure in that timeframe that can survive such harsh temperature swings.

For anyone that has kids or is under 30 and plans on trying to survive - as preppy as it might sound - I would recommend starting to think about underground dwellings and controlled environment hydroponic gardening asap.

I think both can be true - strategically voting for dems is still a conscious choice to vote for a party that supports foreign genocide.

Like in the trolley problem - you can decide to kill less people but you're still a murderer either way - and because your hand was forced you can then spend the rest of your life using the guilt to figure out who tied those people to the tracks and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.

My fear is that the bread and circus that the dems are selling is too comfortable so people wouldn't feel the need to rise up in arms against the system since "they haven't come for them yet" - but so long as blue voters always remember they have blood on their hands and feel remorseful about the choice they made - that can be channeled into positive change via direct action.

When people in hamsterballs is a more space efficient way of transporting people than cars are smh

As I replied to the commenter above - I'm not telling anyone to not vote for whoever they think has the highest chance of minimizing harm - just don't rely on voting being the only way to exercise your opinion (as some people have claimed is the only power they have left) - if you remember that voting blue is a just a short term strategy to prevent orange man from getting in and fucking shit up - do it. But don't forget that voting is only the beginning - and until we have tens of millions out on the streets protesting against the Dems being okay with literal genocide - nothing will change for the better.

We can't have our freedoms be won on the backs of bombing children - it wasn't okay when Obama did it - it's not okay now.

Again, vote for the lesser evil - just don't forget they're evil and even after the election cycle is over continue to employ direct action to force the complicit ruling class into actually doing something - instead of being able to rely on "vote blue no matter who" voters to get elected year after year while they're slowing sliding to the right trying to win over conservatives.

Some of my rights have already been taken away under the current Supreme Court and I’m not willing to risk the rights of myself and others for the sake of some self-righteous quest.

Finally, I respect you for going mask off - you're not willing to lose your freedom for somebody outside your country - you believe your lives cost more than theirs and doing anything that puts you at risk is not worthwhile.

We can’t completely dismantle the system in a week so what else can we do right now?

Have you tried taking direct action against weapon manufacturers? Going to Harris rallies and calling her out for supporting genocide? Convincing others to take drastic measures instead of just voting for the lesser evil? Those are small things that actually help dismantle the system - voting doesn't.

The first mistake was bartering with moderates - if a person is willing to compromise on genocide - what would they not be willing to compromise on?

MLK said it 60 years ago and it's still true today: “…that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season'"

But keep waiting and hoping that next cycle the window wouldn't have moved further to the right

Is your relative safety worth the lives of thousands of Palestinians? You seem to think so. But always remember - "pragmatic" support for the "lesser evil" isn't going to result in less genocide - it just teaches them exactly how many atrocities you're willing to accept.

When you tell politicians they can bomb any country, support any ethnic cleansing, and expand any war while still getting your vote as long as they wave a rainbow flag - you're not preventing fascism, you're just giving it a differently colored stamp of approval.

The fact that you think "moral brownie points" are even part of the discussion only shows you view the lives of people as nothing more than a political tool.

And look, if your moral framework tells you to vote blue - vote blue - but don't let that be the end of it - go out and risk losing your freedom before there's no-one left to risk theirs to save yours.

Oh sick is Kamala campaigning on that??

"Even if" and "threatening to use military force against political dissidents"? - like how Kamala vowed to unconditionally support the genocide? or Gavin Newsom strategically used violent police force to disband pro-Palestinian encampments but not defend them against counter protestors? - it's already impossible to push for a change in foreign policy under blue rule - why do you think that will suddenly change when they get another 4 years in office?

But hey they haven't come for you yet, so you can sleep easy knowing there's brown people, political dissidents and lgbtq+ folk to be taken away before it's your turn..

You are!

Don't just vote - go out on the streets and demand that the Dems condemn the genocide and to stop sending military aid to Israel if they actually want your vote!

If you won't risk having your rights taken away on the grounds of literal genocide - what would you risk them for?

Anyone who explicitly decides against voting for Harris/Walz implicitly decides that they're fine with Trump.

And anyone who explicitly decides voting for Harris/Walz explicitly decides they are fine with genocide irrespective of Trump.

If Trump promised to end the Palestinian Genocide, but all other points of his agenda (labor protections, lgbt rights etc.) were the same, would you vote for Trump instead? Would you fuck over every other bit of progress for that one issue?

In a fantasy world where he would actually do it, yes? So you're saying you are okay with max libertarianism in your own county even if that means ethnically cleansing an innocent population in another? That's a very backwards understanding of liberty and human rights.

Also saying "that one issue" when we're talking about a literal genocide is super rich. Would you have said the same thing about the Holocaust? "I know this Hitler guy really hates minorities but look at how much he loves doggos and what amazing things he's doing for the German economy!"

If the Overton Window can be yanked back to the left and the Christofascists left behind

You see voting for a party that has vowed unwavering support for an oppressor to exterminate a native population as a move to the left? You'd rather vote for Librofascists than Christofascists and that's your choice - I'd rather not vote for fascists at all.

Just don't blame voters that draw a hard line at genocide if the Dems lose, rather ask why they are willing to throw an election by not taking a hard stance against the literal worst crime against humanity.

I understand juggling the current political hellscape with a child is nightmarish but building a movement behind a better political system would be the first step in allowing people to vote for better options and resolve the myriad of issues you've listed - until then saying to "keep the cart behind the horse" only means we'll continue bickering in the backseat while the obviously broken two-party state drives us all off the edge.

And I get that between work and family finding time to be politically active can be challenging but I would hope you can find an hour or two a month to join your local RCV advocacy group and help create a better political environment for yours and everybody else's children.

So now that you've identified the problem I can only hope you're actively building grassroots support to replace the current system instead of just posting online about how people should vote blue no matter what, right?

Kissing someone that's intoxicated without asking for consent first. (Even with consent you should ideally wait until both of you are sober to ask again)

Without Narrativium, the cosmos has no story, no purpose, no destination.