Stanard

My first thought was "wait until they hear about Shakespeare". Literally every role filled by men, sometimes with the script explicitly calling for a man to play a female in full attire.

I'd also hate to see what policies they'll enact for their chorale program when performing historical hymns, where soprano parts specifically called for a male eunuch (castrato) to sing since females were not allowed to attend church services including choirs.

In my younger years I would have been absolutely vilified by these people. I'm probably vilified now, but I would've been then too. In all seriousness though, I cannot believe how far backwards we've gone in all this. I recognize that these thoughts and feelings have existed since before I was a kid but at least back then people seemed to have the decency to mind their own.

But to attack theatre of all things with this gender bullshit is attacking theatre itself. Crossdressing in theatre has existed for as long as theatre has existed. Cross-singing has existed for as long as singing has existed. If they're not teaching that stuff in their performing arts programs, they are denying young adults a quality education of the performing arts.

This is infuriating. Let me make sure I've got this right:

So, our military personnel "volunteer" to serve, and in doing so are forced to reside at whatever military base in whichever State/country that the higher ups decide. Then the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which allowed for existing abortion bans to go into effect in various states as well as paved the way for other abortion bans to be put into effect. Our military personnel are also bound by the laws of wherever they are stationed. To help alleviate the concerns of our military personnel, President Biden issued a travel reimbursement policy so that our volunteer based military personnel wouldn't have to pay to travel somewhere that they more agree with the laws of, to have a medical procedure performed that is outlawed where they have been forced to reside. Then this chucklefuck Tuberville decides to block any and all military promotions because he essentially thinks that the most regressive state laws should apply to the entire volunteer based military. And then he complains that the military is facing personnel issues? Excuse me but what the fuck? Am I missing something?

I don't think anyone is even forcing states to allow abortions for military personnel, just trying to provide travel reimbursement so that personnel can go to a state that hasn't banned abortions without having to pay the travel costs themselves. Right? Why wouldn't we want that policy? Military personnel don't get to choose where they're stationed (they do sometimes get some say but they don't make the final decision) so why not reimburse them if they're forced to travel for medical reasons?

If he thinks the military is facing personnel issues now, and at least partially because he's interfering, has he even considered the ramifications of taking even more rights away from people that volunteer to serve? I mean, ffs they already give up many of their rights as is. And abortion bans have already proven to be an extremely unpopular policy, with citizens in several Republican states already voting against said bans and in fairly large numbers with large margins to boot.

I legitimately feel like I must be missing something. Can this guy really be this stupid? Or does he actually despise the American people? Is there some pro-life lobbying group bribing donating to him for him to do this?

A quote from the judge according to the article:

"I just can't believe being evicted would justify picking up a handgun in that small of a space with children present"

What I find particularly concerning about this is that this implies that being evicted would justify picking up a handgun provided you're not in an enclosed space with children present. Why in the actual fuck would there be any further qualification after "I just can't believe being evicted would justify picking up a handgun". Full stop. You're being evicted. You fucked up. Firearms don't belong in that conversation at all with the only possible exception I can think of being if you are being directly and illegally threatened with a firearm.

Ugh.

I wouldn't pretend it's not something terrorists would do. I think what people are upset about is more like: let's assume that there is a terrorist HQ being run in a school. Let's also assume their are innocent people of any and all ages in that same school. Finally, let's assume there are only two options to deal with the terrorist HQ (there could be others in reality but for this exercise there are only two options).

Option a) bomb the school, injuring and killing everyone inside. Option b) a specialized operation that will only target the terrorists but may result in casualties to your army.

People, and myself, are upset that the option being chosen seems to overwhelmingly be option a, the indiscriminate injury and death of everyone in the building whether innocent or terrorist. No judge and no jury for anyone involved, only death.

For me at least, this cartoon is not pointing out that terrorists would run an HQ in a school. It's pointing out that currently the IDF cannot, or will not, see past the fact that this is still a picture of a school. It may contain a terrorist HQ, but it's not a building labeled "terrorist HQ" with the sole function of being a terrorist HQ. This is a picture of a school that may also house a terrorist HQ. And that is a very very important distinction that seems to be wildly ignored.

I had to check. They actually said this. I've never played Warhammer (I have been interested, just haven't gotten around to it) and I don't know these devs at all, but contradicting themselves with just seven words in the same sentence is actually kind of impressive.

Edit: tl;dr ITT I try and fail to convey that terrorists using innocent people as meat shields/hostages is wrong and a government bombing those terrorists along with their hostages is also wrong. I dunno how that's too confusing for anyone to understand but I guess some folk truly are lost causes.

Original comment below:

Are you implying that Israel has not done any bombing whatsoever? Or are you implying that terrorists hiding behind innocent people means everyone involved must die by bombing? Or are you just a troll trying to get a reaction from people by posting an obviously ignorant comment?

Let me ask you this, if some bank robbers took your family and friends hostage, what do you think the response should be? By your own logic I must assume that they all need to die because criminals were using them as meat shields. By your logic, if your home is being robbed and the robber uses you as a shield, the response should be to mow you down along with the robber. How unlucky for you that the robber chose your house eh? How ignorant.

And if you're struggling to put yourself in those shoes, good. Be glad that you're so far removed from such dangers. But you are not immune. Criminals and potential terrorists exist everywhere, and I truly hope that if you ever find yourself in a hostage situation that the response isn't what you idolize for innocent people in a foreign land. Because even unemphatic scum don't deserve to die simply for being a hostage.

I'd like to assume that you simply forgot a "/s", and I apologize if the sarcastic intent of your comment was lost, but there are people that truly believe what you've said.

So so very close to piecing together why bombing a refugee camp even if there are terrorists or supporting infrastructure located there is a terrible idea.

I truly don't know how you can recognize that Hamas wants civilians to die because it will strengthen their numbers, and still excuse the bombing of civilians. Perhaps you're just trolling?

What is the punishment for disclosing the confidential material that he is reviewing? And what punishment would a "normal" person face? If the answers are anything like the punishment Trump faced for violating a court-mandated gag order, I suspect he will talk about these confidential documents, and punishment will consist of a harsh tone and finger wagging. And don't be fooled, to the wealthy (or to those receiving large sums in political donations), a monetary fine measured in thousands of dollars is just that: a harsh tone and finger wag.

IDGAF if he's the former president. IDGAF if it were Biden, Clinton, or the most liberal/Democratic person in existence. If they break the law, if they break court orders, punish them equally.

Idk about OP but I've been ashamed of my country since at least 2016 2001 1990 August 6, 1945 the 17th century when "we" decided that land settled by Native Americans somehow belonged to us. I wasn't alive for most of that time but I guarantee my country has done shameful things for muuuch longer than 24 days.

Capitalism doesn't endlessly produce, it produces to meet demand. Sometimes the "demand" can consist of subsidies to the industry with the intention of lowering price to consumers, but with the consequence of potentially creating more waste. I've read about farmers dumping excess product out because subsidies "bought" too much product to fit on shelves (aka consumers didn't buy enough to satisfy the greed for profit). Heaven forbid that excess product help people in need, for that may hurt the bottom line.

You honestly said it best in the first thing you said. .."capitalists that put profit before".. everything else. Pure capitalists, while mostly if not entirely evil, do not pollute for the fun of it. They pollute because of greed. If they aren't profiting from polluting, they'll (try to) find another way to profit. It's all they know, a literal one track mind.

That is definitely not to say that their carelessness while chasing profit is okay. It's harmful and evil. But it is largely just that, carelessness. A pure capitalist cares of nothing other than personal gain. And a public corporation in capitalist society must put shareholder profits ahead of all else by law. The only things they must adhere to in pursuit of profit are other laws, and even then only if the penalty for breaking the law hurts profits more than ignoring the law. This is by design, however terrible that design may be. Examples of this are everywhere. Children illegally hired in packing plants, illegal union busting, etc.

Perhaps the most brazen examples are car manufacturers doing cost-benefit analysis on whether to issue a recall on defective cars. Literally teams of experts calculating whether it will be cheaper to recall and fix dangerous defects, or pay out lawsuits when people get hurt/die. Spoiler: they can, have, and do choose to eat the cost of lawsuits when it is calculated to be cheaper than a recall. And yes, if you live in a capitalist society your life has a dollar amount attached to it (roughly $7.5 million as of 2020 according to FEMA). Your social security number may as well be a barcode placed on product.

Sorry, I got a little sidetracked. What I'm ultimately trying to get at is, we as consumers will have to take responsibility for consuming less because industry will do its' best to meet demand as long as it is profitable to do so. I think switching subsidies to alternative, less polluting foods is a great solution because it (in theory) works on multiple fronts.

By not subsidizing the meat & dairy industry, industry will be forced to raise cost to consumers or lose money. A higher cost to consumers means consumers will be more open to alternative options. If the options that are better for the environment are then subsidized to lower cost to consumers they become an attractive option.

Example: If the average meat eating, non-eco minded consumer has the choice between paying $50 for a pound of real meat, or $50 for a pound of meat alternative that tastes identical, they'll choose real meat nearly every time. Now give that same consumer an option of $10 for a pound of meat alternative (whether it tastes identical or not) and the mental math changes considerably. And honestly I doubt the price difference would have to be that drastic to have a noticeable impact on consumer buying habits. Especially when you take into account that people are trending towards being more eco aware.

I'm gonna end this here before I go on ranting all day. /Rant

Tldr; capitalism sucks. Subsidizing meat alternatives seems like a decent idea. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. I hope you all have a wonderful day, and achieve all of your dreams. Please leave me alone :)

Do you believe UN reports about the "Hamas aligned side"? Or is that just some big conspiracy?

And by your own words: "Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime." "Do you remember that refugee camp they hit yesterday?" I'll even concede and say sure, let's assume there were Hamas terrorists hiding in the refugee camp. Let's also assume there was terrorist-supporting infrastructure in the refugee camp. Guess what though. IT WAS STILL A FUCKING REFUGEE CAMP!

Let that sink in extra slow through your thick skull. Read through several times if you must. They knew there were innocent civilians in a refugee camp. They also suspected terrorists in said refugee camp. If you think the best and only option was to bomb that refugee camp, you're wrong and a monster. Or is it that you're simply a racist that thinks that every Palestinian is a terrorist simply for existing on the wrong "side"?

Let's say we find out that there's some terrorists hiding out in your city. Is the only solution to bomb the city? Yourself, your family, and your friends included? Let's say we narrow it down to terrorists hiding on your block. What's your solution? How much "collateral damage" (innocent civilian deaths) is acceptable to root out the terrorism that exists in your home town?

Edit: I would like to add that yes, this is distracting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would also like to add that I recognize that I do not know nearly enough about this conflict to speak with authority on the subject. What I do know enough about though is that not every Palestinian is involved with nor supports Hamas. And not every Israeli is involved with nor supports the IDF. There are many Innocent people that have died, and are continuing to die from both sides of this conflict. And every one of those deaths is a tragedy. I wholeheartedly condemn Hamas' killings of innocent civilians, and I wholeheartedly condemn Israel's killings of innocent civilians. Both sides fucking suck and the people that are truly paying the price are the innocent people dying and losing loved ones. I don't know what the answer is, or even if there is a "right answer". Maybe a special ground operation would have minimized loss of life? I don't know. What I definitely do know is that I will never be okay with the deaths of innocent people.

I originally had typed out a long-winded reply that I realized was ultimately counterproductive. In all likelihood we should be allies.

So let me start by congratulating you on your new position! I hope that you can continue to pump out that much energy on the job and still have at least that much energy to take home to friends and family.

That said, IMO the fight against the modern work week isn't about people being tired. While I do think most people would be tired and lack energy for self, family, and friends after doing the work you do, that's largely irrelevant. The real problem with the modern work week is that it's simply not necessary any more.

I prefer making the comparison to peasants rather than slaves, as slaves obviously had/have it much worse than the average modern worker. Back in the days of peasantry people worked because they needed the fruit of their labor to survive. Regardless of how many hours it took or how tired they were, they directly relied on the crop they farmed and the clothes they made to survive. That is no longer the case.

In the modern age we produce more than we need to survive on a global scale. There is more than enough for everyone as is and there has been for some time. So why is it still expected that we work the same as we have for years and years? In the age where much of the work is automated and automation increasing rapidly, why is it still inherently expected that humans work just as much, or even remotely close to as much, as we have in the past? To us, the modern work week is essentially arbitrary. We work until "the boss" says we've worked enough to earn our allowance and they say we should be thankful for as much as we're given. We no longer receive or rely on the fruit of our labor in order to survive, "the boss" relies on the fruit of our labor in order to afford their next luxury.

Don't get me wrong, we live in an age of relative comfort. Most of us have plenty to survive and some creature comforts to spare. But if you are apart of "the 98%", which in all likelihood you are, you are not receiving anything even remotely close to what you actually produce.

So, looking past any claims of being tired after 40 hours/week, or how studies have shown that in many cases the modern work week can literally be counterproductive, I ask you why we are expected to work 40 hours/week if it's simply not necessary, aside from "the boss" essentially arbitrarily declaring that it is necessary? And really the fight for a shortened work week and the fight for increased minimum wage are the same fight. It's all based on the fact that we as workers are receiving less and less for our work as time goes by.

That's what the fight is really about, and why -provided you're not a billionaire (which you're very likely not)- we are allies. I may disagree with you on many things, myself and many others may not have as much energy as you, we may not have similar interests or hobbies, but truly none of that matters at all since we are both the modern day equivalent to peasants, except neither of us receives the full fruit of our labor. And for that I call you friend.

So with that, I wish you the greatest success in life friend. And whether or not you join the fight, or even agree with it, may you receive your true worth.

Wow. Just.. wow. I'm not going to respond to everything because frankly, I don't feel like debating this and worse yet, you're absolutely right that I don't fully understand the situation, the rules of engagement, the legal/militaristic terms, etc. But I do have a few things I'd like to say, not that I think it will make a lick of difference for you.

First and foremost is that just because something is legally allowed, whether it's in war or in peace, does not make it morally okay. I recognize that you seem to be thinking of this from a purely militaristic point of view. I've never tried to argue that they're breaking international law or anything like that. I am fighting this from the perspective of someone with half a shred of empathy, but it seems you've come unarmed.

As far as the refugee camp goes, it only counts if civilians seek refuge on some flat unbuilt land and pitch tents? If that were the case I can all but guarantee you would still excuse it so what difference does it make? Again, arguing from the perspective of an empathetic person, to me a refugee camp is anywhere that people seek refuge. I don't care about legal definitions or military rules of engagement, I care about people. But it apparently wouldn't matter if civilians were seeking refuge in tents in the middle of nowhere, as long as "Intel suggests" Hamas activity in the newly erected campground you'd justify the bombing the exact same by your logic.

As far as leveling entire sections of the city, I suggest looking for the publicly released satellite images of Gaza from before and after this most recent conflict. Not that it matters to you because "this is not abhorrent within the context of military conflict." But, you can probably guess from my first points that I couldn't give two flying fucks about what is seen as okay in "the context of military conflict". It's a tragedy and should be abhorrent in any fucking context. The loss of life alone is terrible enough, not to mention the damage to the Earth when all of that has to be rebuilt. Justifying this in any way shape or form is nothing less than evil. Full stop.

Time and conflicts have proven time and time again that killing innocent people in the name of fighting terrorism breeds terrorists. If you critically think for a moment (and based on your militaristic view I'm not sure you can) it only makes sense. If you kill someone's family, if you take away all they have to live for, they have no further reason not to seek revenge. But I guess that doesn't matter because it seems like you're ok justifying what amounts to an endless game of whack-a-mole; you smack one down and wait for the next to pop up.

Once more I ask you to try to put yourself in their shoes. Play devil's advocate with yourself for a while. You never did tell me what you think should be done about the terrorists in your home town. If you live in an urbanized area they almost certainly exist. Do your precious rules of engagement still apply? And more importantly, outside the context of the almighty law, are you okay with it? Or would you feel upset (or anything really) if the military leveled your loved ones' block in the name of fighting terrorism? Would you still be happy if they bombed your innocent family because "Justice was served"?

The fully sovereign Palestinian state you're referring to should be in neighboring Egypt according to Israel if the articles I saw last night are to be believed. I suppose passing what you seem to view as unwanted pests off on the neighbor is a solution though?

Or perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that you label all Palestinians as "the enemy" that you shouldn't give preparation time to unless it furthers your political goals? Ugh just typing that makes me physically ill. Fuck political goals. These aren't some theoretical unknown life forms we're talking about. These are living, breathing people getting caught in the crossfire. These are kids that belong in school, families, people that are trying to go about their day and greet their family at the end of it. They and myself don't give a rats ass about these made up political goals.

From the bottom of my heart, and please take this to the black hole where your heart should be: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on for justifying unnecessary loss of life because it lines up better with political goals.

Finally, again I reiterate that I am not an authority on this or any military conflict. I am apparently more of an authority on empathy though, so take that for what it's worth.

I also reiterate that all attacks by Hamas that have taken unnecessary innocent lives is nothing short of tragedy. Absolutely evil.

I also also reiterate that all attacks by Israel that have taken unnecessary innocent lives is nothing short of tragedy. Absolutely evil.

ESH. Politics? Fucking suck. Military? Fucking suck. Anyone and everyone that is okay with innocent people of any nation, culture, skin color, etc. dying? You fucking suck worst of all for enabling all the other shit that fucking sucks. If I had a better mind for politics I'd probably ask you kindly to go find a ditch and swallow a tidepod. But that's not who I am. I love you for the human you all are and view your lives as sacred. But if you justify the deaths of innocent people in the name of political goals, would you kindly go choke on a lifesaver for a bit.

Yours truly,

Stanard

I especially love the part where they say that X/Twitter not hiring after their layoffs has left many people wondering what those employees were doing in the first place. As someone who has never been very "into" Twitter, even I can see that the site has gone way downhill since Musk and his layoffs. I don't have to wonder what the laid off employees were doing because I know by a quick glance that whatever they were doing, they were doing it better than it's being done now.

I'm confused what this is trying to say. You tried defending genocide? Because that's messed up.

If you're claiming that a left-wing forum was defending genocide I'm gonna have to doubt that unless provided proof. From what I've seen genocide seems to be an ideal exclusive to the right-wing authoritarian crowd.

The only way to kill an entire population of peoples is to not allow for people to disagree with you, because people will disagree with you if you're trying to kill an entire population of peoples.

According to the article, I think a more appropriate analogy would be claiming "I'm going to sell four apples!", followed by actually selling three apples. Then claiming you spent a fortune to get out of an existing contract saying you would rent an apple-basket for x years, as well as having to pay the apples you sold because you sold them earlier than you told them you would. And then buying two apples from the person selling apples next-door that picks their apples from the same tree you picked yours from.

At the end of the day you've only lowered your apple count by one while you simultaneously:

• Manufactured a tax write-off for the expenses you incurred by prematurely selling three apples

• Manufactured a tax write-off for the expenses you incurred by prematurely terminating the agreement to rent an apple-basket

• Manufactured a tax write-off for the expenses you incurred by buying two apples from a rival apple merchant

• Sewed seeds of doubt among all fruits, vegetables, and other produce regarding their chances of finding a merchant

• Got investors to at least temporarily value your business higher because they thought you had five too many apples and were excited at the prospect of you selling four of them

Keep in mind that in this analogy you had teams of experts that calculated all of this for you well in advance of you even making an announcement, and that the rival apple merchant also took very similar, if not identical steps.

Edit: Oh, and don't forget that selling apples isn't actually the business you and your rival apple merchant are in. You're both actually in the juice business and apples are just a means to an end for you.

I was curious if this was still the case and upon doing some research it seems that the stats regarding the "largest" Navies and Air Forces have changed in recent years. According to the Wikipedia page on US armed forces, it seems that the largest Air Force in the world is still the US Air Force, followed by the US Army Aviation Branch. The US Navy has fallen to the fourth largest Air Force in the world, while continuing to be the largest naval Air Force in the world.

Regarding Navy sizes, it seems that the US Navy has dropped to the fourth largest Navy in the world behind China, Russia, and North Korea (this one was rather surprising to me).

That said, the world's two largest Air Forces still apparently belong to the US military. Furthermore, size does not necessarily equal power. Countries could inflate their numbers, or even presumably count vessels that aren't what we would consider military vessels; e.g. pad their naval numbers by counting unrelated fishing boats as part of a Navy. When you factor in technology, training, and modernization of "old" equipment, it seems agreed that each branch of the US military is still the most powerful in the world compared to other countries respective military branches. And judging by the fact that the US military still has three (!!!) of the top 5 largest Air Forces in the world, as well as having each respective branch of its military in the world's top 10 largest, I would hazard a guess that the power gap is quite large.

They said "It is a momento to collect, like a concert tshirt".

For those out of the loop, my understanding is that the speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly (lower house in Wisconsin), Robin Vos (R) has declared that he will not allow any raises for anyone working for the University of Wisconsin system unless and until the UW system gets rid of any and all diversity initiatives. The UW system consists of 13 public universities with campuses across the state, one of which has a cutting edge hospital system, namely UW health in Madison. This has been going on since at least mid September.

This is the same man and party that has/is also (not an exhaustive list):

• Threatening to oust general election commissioner of Wisconsin
• Threaten and create taxpayer funded panels seeking to impeach the newly elected, pro-choice Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz (D) that swapped the majority of the Supreme Court just after Roe v Wade was overturned
• Hand-picked an investigator to investigate the 2020 election, then 14 months later fired said investigator. But not before nearly 1 million dollars was recorded being spent from taxpayer dollars

If consumers don't take responsibility, who will? I for one will not be holding my breath for the legal system to take nor force responsibility. And certainly won't hold my breath waiting for capitalists to take responsibility. The only way I can see any current system to budge at all is at the behest of consumers, by force. I am not advocating violence, just simply stating that as far as I'm concerned, asking nicely for a capitalist to stop profiting, or even asking to not profit as much is a fallacy.

If you or anyone has convincing arguments saying otherwise I would really honestly love to hear them because frankly I don't like feeling/thinking this way. It's depressing and helpless feeling and I hate it. But it's what I've seen and grown up with my entire life.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but the way I take it is that the State requires the parties authorization to put a candidate on the ballot for the primary. In order to get said authorization from the party, candidates have to pay up.

Please note that this system is totally fair though because you don't have to pay the party fee to apply for and appear on the ballot for the general election. And as a bonus, by not bowing to the two main parties you get to appear on the ballot as a third party candidate which is very exciting and a great opportunity for you to learn more about our wonderful two party system!

And what does that change exactly? Definition: A government is a group of people governing an organized community. So if that organized community were a bunch of robbers or terrorists, and they had some others to govern them, they are by definition a government. If that government or organized community then holds you hostage, does that somehow make it different compared to if it were just a group of unorganized robbers or terrorists that didn't have leaders? So just because some common criminals have a leader, making them a "government", all of a sudden it's ok to kill you along with them?

Let me simplify that. Gangs are governments by definition, i.e. an organized community with leaders. If you, your family, and/or friends were held hostage by a gang, you are saying it's okay to kill you, your family, and/or friends in the name of killing off some gangsters. If that feels wrong then you need to rethink your opinion because that is a direct equivalence to what is happening between Israel and Hamas/Palestinians. Hamas are the equivalent to gangsters and Israel is the equivalent to the US government acting through the police to murder people you love in the name of killing off gangsters.

Let me answer that first question for you because I now believe you're too thick skulled to figure it out yourself. The fact that it's a "government" changes nothing in regards to another "government" killing innocent people.

Please note, I am not(!!) advocating for Hamas. What they have done and are still doing is fucking terrible. I condemn it with every fiber of my being. But to say that innocent people brought their own deaths upon themselves simply for existing on the wrong side of an imaginary line is fucked up. The only people that are "losing" in this conflict are the innocent people dying on both sides of the imaginary line. And if you can't agree with that I'm done replying. Just because someone is Palestinian doesn't make their deaths any better or worse than if they're Israeli. Innocent civilians are innocent civilians regardless of which side of the line they're on. I condemn any and all violence in this conflict. Both governments think they're in the right and the only people that suffer are those caught in the crossfire. Full stop. May you find a little empathy, have a nice night, and a good life.

How so? Which industry produces without consumers involved? I'm honestly not trying to be condescending, if you can help me feel less bitter toward the world.. I don't even know what that would feel like anymore. I cannot express how grateful I would be.

I suppose it could be argued that an industry could (and I suppose maybe has) jumpstarted itself from nothing through clever/abusive advertising; the example that comes to mind is perhaps the diamond industry? I'm thinking of De Beers extensive marketing campaigns that implanted diamonds as the only 'real' choice to propose with. But it still takes consumers at the end of the chain for that/any industry to survive. Nobody holds guns to our heads forcing us to buy things. The only industry I can think of that is life or death and simultaneously our only feasible option of survival is the medical industry. But even then, barring external pressures, if people somehow stopped going to hospitals en masse the hospitals would shut down. If people stop buying manufactured medicine, they stop manufacturing medicine.

Just to clarify, I don't think it's right or "fair" for responsibility to fall on consumers. Ideally, elected officials would pass laws that make industries take responsibility for their actions. Even more ideally, greedy people wouldn't be in positions of power. But greedy people will always seek positions of power in their lust for power, and altruistic people will naturally gravitate away from positions of power in their quest to help empower others.

Like I've said though, if you or anyone has any examples to help me change my way of thought I honestly truly welcome it with an open heart. But as far as I can tell, in capitalism the only way meaningful, helpful change happens is when the consumers (the masses) are educated, well informed, and think critically about the choices they make at the checkout. Supply and demand economics is well known, and essentially a solved equation for businesses at this point. If there is demand and profit to be had, someone will supply that demand come hell or high water. I (unfortunately) literally cannot see any other way at this point.

Are you implying that all Palestinian people are apart of "a terrorist organization"? You are beginning to come across as full on racist. At what point does "Justice" turn into terrorism in itself? How many innocent people is it "okay" to kill in the name of defeating a terrorist organization? It isn't just "a terrorist organization" being killed.

Palestinian == terrorist. Hamas == terrorists. Killing hundreds/thousands of Palestinians in order to kill Hamas is not okay. Bombing a hospital filled with Palestinians is not okay.

Also, which is it? Is Hamas "a terrorist organization" or a government?

How optimistic to think you'd make it to trial for your theft.

I think I agree with direct action being more effective. The question is at what cost? In modern society, at least in the US, theft and other direct actions are crimes seemingly punishable by death on sight. The sheer number of news articles involving thieves being shot, especially if they're running, deeply saddens me. To me, non-violent crimes warrant non-violent solutions. But then to me it's arguable whether stealing groceries should even be a crime. Desperation will drive people to a life of crime 9 times out of 10 and who can blame them if there are no other resources available? I honestly don't know what the solution to any of this is if there even is a perfect or near perfect solution. I'm all for not letting perfection get in the way of progress (in theory at least. In practice I'm personally a bit of a neurotic perfectionist and it prevents me from getting anything done), but I hate loss of life. And unfortunately even peaceful protest seems to turn violent when a few people do something to "justify" the use of weapons banned in warfare (tear gas) and worse, deadly force. I recognize that this is likely the cost of progress, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

I do still have some vague hope in democracy, and wish more good-hearted people could be elected. But I also recognize that those that most deserve positions of power are the least likely to seek positions of power. Let alone what their chances would be to actually be granted said positions by those already in power. To be honest I feel the cards are heavily stacked against the people, and have been for some time. And all of the ways I can envision getting out of the situation, quite frankly, suck ass for one reason or another. But ultimately the answer will likely have to suck, will probably involve violence (which I hate), and will take some time. But it may be better in the long run I guess, but I don't particularly want to be the one to pull the metaphorical trigger. And I definitely don't want to be the one to pull the not-so-metaphorical trigger..

I agree with you almost entirely. There are definitely deceptive advertising practices all over by every industry. And subliminal messaging is in use everywhere. Both are getting worse all the time as people trade privacy for convenience, myself included. A quick search will reveal many results of people talking about how they've talked about something for the first time that they have no interest in and being shown ads for it later. Advertising has reached the point where companies can tell when a woman is pregnant before she does and start advertising accordingly.

I also agree that for most of this, consumers are the virtually powerless underdogs. The only way to truly stop it, if there even is a way to stop something like subliminal advertising, is legislation.

All that said, I do think that consumers can do more than we are. In the current world it seems like waiting for politicians that are bought and paid for by these companies to pass legislation that these companies don't want is the wrong course of action if the goal is to decrease consumption. Nations want you to consume because that makes the economy look better.

However, educating ourselves, and more importantly each other, on these deceptive advertising practices, and taking an active stance to consciously combat said practices can make an immediate impact while we wait/hope for meaningful legislation. If we're watching a movie or TV show with friends and see some subtle product placement, call it out. When we're at the store take a moment to consciously think about whether we need some product, and what the consequences of buying said product are. How much energy is used, what kind of waste does it make both during production and after consumption. If it's recyclable, how? And how much energy is used in doing so? We should all demand to know what our local recycling policies are. Not just what they accept as "recyclable" but whether they actually recycle or just send it to a dump anyway. And wherever possible opt for options that are better for our world and better yet, going without when possible. I see a lot of "keeping up with the Joneses" in the modern world, and so much waste that seems reasonable avoidable.

I think I got a bit sidetracked. I definitely don't think we as consumers can do everything, and I think pretty much the full responsibility should fall on corporations and those in power, but currently that's largely not the case. And I don't think we have time to wait for that to change.

Ultimately I definitely think we largely agree; maybe slight differences in the how, but the end goal seems the same. As far as I can tell we are allies. We can and should help each other and others to advocate for personal changes and policy/legislative changes to combat the rampant over-consumption and over-production in the world today. I don't have children but I still want a livable Earth for future generations so so much.

That is a fair point. I only skimmed a page of search results and a couple of articles, but I didn't see any mention of weight measurements. That really could be a better way to measure "size" though. Assuming extra weight means more/better armaments, thicker hulls, more munitions, more sailors (and all of the supplies that go with them), etc. Not to mention how much weight a top-tier Air Force would add to a Navy's weight. It's quite staggering to think about and I'm sure I'm still not fully able to comprehend the sheer scale of it all.

I suppose a few trillion dollars per year will do that though 😅

Great outfits! I'm curious though, does your local ren faire not require to keep your weapons "peace-tied"? I know most festival attendees aren't looking to cut people down, but even an unsharpened blade can cause a lot of damage in a sword-fighting accident so I feel like it's a nice policy overall.

Also, would you care to share roughly how much time and money went into these? I've wanted to get into the cosplay aspect of Ren-faire but it feels prohibitively expensive even buying online, and outright bank breaking buying anything at the faire itself. I haven't been in a few years but even back then the cheapest pair of boots anywhere on-site were $600. Granted, they were very nice looking, leather, presumably hand-made, and came with a lifetime guarantee (as long as that vendor stays) but whew that's more than I can afford.

I know a lot of that stuff will be and should be expensive just for the craftsmanship and time involved though. My buddy made his own chainmail shirt and it took him months and months of manually bending steel wire so I get how much work goes into these pieces.

Anyway, just wanted to say nice outfits and keep it going :)

Preface: I do not know enough of this subject or conflict to speak authoritatively.

If they were told to leave their homes and take a certain path to avoid being bombed, trusted that advice but were bombed on the "safe" path anyway by the very people who told them they would be safe if they took said path, why should they continue to trust whoever told them that?

Furthermore, if there were bombs dropping on and/or around you no matter what you did or who you listened to, simply for existing in the wrong place and at no fault of your own, wouldn't you rather at least be in the "comfort" of your own home?

First, and I don't mean to be pedantic, I'm sure you know this but just want to clarify, putting absolutes on things like saying no one buys something is almost always false. Very few people comparatively sure, but when it comes to capitalist greed these differences matter. Anyway..

Sure they'll miss a fiscal year or two here and there. But in the case of iPhones, I can assure you that if Apple calculated that the iPhone was going to continue to not sell well and would hurt their profits to continue manufacturing, I probably wouldn't be able to hit the button on a stopwatch fast enough to measure how quickly they would shut down manufacturing. Keep in mind that there are indirect costs/profits involved in many things. e.g. The value of user data gathered by phones is absolutely accounted for, goes into profit calculations, and is probably worth more to the right people than you'd think. Apple is one of the richest, most profitable companies in the world despite releasing what we would consider to be flops several times over the years. Apple released a video game console (the Pippin) in 1996 to compete with the OG PlayStation. They brought it to the US in '97 and pulled the plug the same year. The PlayStation released in '94 and sold well through the release of the PS2 in 2000 for comparison. A colossal flop from Apple that was nixed in merely a year.

A perfect example of the indirect profits that a product can accrue is when Google was initially getting into the tablet OS market some years back (around 2011 I think is when this specific "deal" was in place). They purposely sold the first Nexus tablet at cost/at a loss, paired with a "free" gift card for the Play store; on the condition that you had to add other payment info to your Play store account. A common tactic that other online vendors use because the statistics show that you are much more likely to spend money once you've already added and saved a payment method. Google didn't require people to actually use the added payment info, and as far as I'm aware they didn't even require you to keep the payment info saved for future purposes. They only required that you save your debit/credit card in order to use your "free" Play store credit. All because the biggest hurdle to getting people to spend online is/was getting them to give their debit/credit card info to the payment vendor. They correctly predicted that when offered store credit, consumers would not only give Google their payment card info, but also not bother deleting said payment info after they added the credit from the Play store gift card. Whatever the reasons may be, whether it be because you don't trust a website, it's more convenient to buy elsewhere, etc. and whatever the store may be, once you've added payment info you are statistically unlikely to subsequently remove that info and more likely to purchase there again in the future. Gotta love it.. but alas even my bitter ass is not immune from these tactics.

As for fidget spinners, I suspect the sheer excess supply from people trying to cash in on the craze has basically cemented them as a permanent item on shelves. I remember reading stories of "normal" people that bought literal warehouses full of the things because during the height of the fidget frenzy the markup on them was insane. And then other people presumably bought up that excess supply for pennies on the dollar when the trend was dying. The capitalists that initially jumped on the profit train when spinners were trending were either successful and took their profits and left the bag holders, or were bag holders that accepted their losses by selling in bulk to someone willing to try selling them.

That went a bit longer than I intended.. In short, even flops and niche items that don't sell very well can still be profitable. I would advise against doubting the ability of greedy people/corporations to extract every possible fraction of a cent in their pursuit of profit.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. That someone invented the iPhone and it went on to be a very successful product for a multi-trillion dollar company? The iPod was out for years before then. Before that there were portable CD players, before that were portable cassette players, and before that portable radios. Long before any of that people would set wood on fire and sing while playing instruments they carved from other wood.

Corporations do get things wrong plenty often. Successful corporations will not invest more than they can afford to on anything, and won't mass produce a product that their user-surveys and number crunchers say won't make them money. Sometimes those surveys and numbers are wrong, but a corporation doesn't build a worth of trillions of dollars by making stuff and putting it all directly in the dump.

True, although to be fair the first iPhone wasn't released until late 2007. Timeline of Apple releases

Great job on stereotyping an entire population of peoples as liars. 👍

And downplaying the loss of innocent lives to boot.

It is "possible" that some were bombed? I guess as long as only some innocent people were bombed everything is ok. After all "many many" were safely uprooted from their homes and evacuated south. Hooray...

I doubt this will sink in but I have to try. There have definitely been innocent lives lost from both sides of this conflict and every one of them is a tragedy. I'm not advocating for either side here because everyone involved in the loss of innocent lives sucks. I don't have a magical solution either so don't bother asking. Innocent people have already, and will continue to die in this conflict. Don't try to make it seem like innocent casualties aren't a big deal.

You're making several assumptions that I don't think I've said or even alluded to. I don't think I've mentioned religion or motivation at all. All I've been trying to say is I disagree with the death of innocent people. I've agreed with you 100% that I do not have a good grasp of the situation and frankly I don't think you or most people do have a full grasp of the situation. You probably know more than me, good job. I still disagree with any person, country, military, religion, etc. taking the lives of innocent people. I recognize that sometimes it can mean fewer deaths in the long run, but seeing as I don't have absolute knowledge of the situation it's not my call to make. I'm not arguing whether one side is doing more harm than the other. I'm not arguing whether one side is more evil, or what their reason for killing is. I'm arguing that innocent people dying sucks. This will be my last reply to you/this thread because I don't have anything else to say. Killing innocent people should be avoided wherever possible because innocent people dying sucks. I'm not sure how that's such a hard concept to grasp or why anyone would argue that killing innocent people is good but evil does exist in this world and it sucks.

Have a wonderful day and may you achieve any and all of your non-evil dreams.

Also, I'm not blaming anyone or any government. I'm not speaking anything about self defense, other than that self defense does not entail violence against innocent people. I do not know enough of the topic or conflict to get into any of that. I am solely pointing out that blindly killing anyone and everyone in proximity of some wrong doing, regardless of their involvement in said wrong doing, is in and of itself wrong.

This isn't Halo or Call of Duty. This isn't "red team" vs "blue team". This isn't a game. There is no score to be tracked and no victory or loss for who can kill more children. The only people that are "losing" in this conflict are the innocent people caught in the crossfire.

The fact that you're implying that it's okay for Israel or Hamas to keep killing as long as they're not on top of some sort of "child-killing leaderboard" is absolutely sickening. I'm literally sick to my stomach even thinking about that. I could not possibly care less who killed who's child first, killing children is wrong. Killing innocent children in retaliation to killing innocent children is wrong. There's no "score" to settle when that "score" involves the injury or death of innocent people. Both sides fucking suck for killing innocent people.

Furthermore, I'll reiterate my point that both sides fucking suck for killing innocent people. That is the only absolute that belongs in this conversation. Neither side is innocent in regards to deaths of innocent people, and neither side is fully to blame for the deaths of innocent people. Hamas is at fault for using innocent people as meat shields and Israel is at fault for firing anyway. Whether Hamas struck first some weeks ago or not, regardless of which "side" started this however many years ago, both Israel and Hamas are culpable for deaths of innocent people. Full stop. No scores, no "winners", and the only "loss" is loss of life.