Es ist ja auch ein Problem, dass erst seit dem Streik existiert. Es ist unmoeglich, dass die Fuerhungsriege, die sich staendig riesige Boni zahlt, das Problem einfach verschleppt und dann (so wie du) denn ausgebeuteten Arbeitern in die Schuhe schiebt.

But that isn’t true anymore, right? Renewables are now way cheaper per produced Watt. And still, we’re stuck with people pretending that’s not true.

Proton seems on the wrong side of the usability - privacy spectrum. Every last feature I’d want from an online provider is impossible or massively neutered by the overly strict security.

I wish there was a similar service in a trustworthy country with a more sane level of safety, like opt-in encryption for example.

Is a VPN even worth it for that use case? A seedbox won’t cost that much more, esp. if you factor in electricity costs from keeping your machine running. And getting to 1.0 seed ratio is also much easier.

Who do we throw into the reactor when the majority of people DEMAND something that is only possible with massive destruction of nature, horrendous waste of resources and horrible immoral practices?

If we kill all the “evil” factory farm owners, but still demand cheap meat every day, we’ll end up reinventing that same horrible system.

You can totally incrementally step towards veganism. That doesn’t mean that veganism isn’t the correct end goal.

A world where everyone does the best they can to avoid and/or fight against bad systems is absolutely the ONLY POSSIBLE WORLD where positive change can happen.

How else would the world change if not through individuals choosing to do the right thing? Are really expecting the same people that have fucked us(rich/politicians) to spontaneously develop a conscience and change the world out of the goodness of their hearts?

Before you bring up guillotines, those ALSO require individuals to make personal choices and changes and take risks.

You have to think practically: When has systemic change ever happened without individuals choosing to make a change? Never!

It’s the same for voting, or boycotting or unionizing or even guillotining. The french kings head didn’t spontaneously fall off, it involved many individuals making a choice, risking their life and even dieing.

They also only ever believe that when it’s about work THEY have to do. If it’s about other people, or it’s about things that directly affects them, the tune suddenly changes.

I can’t, as an individual, end rape culture. Is that therefore an excuse to keep making rape jokes, defending rapists etc.? Obviously not, but by the logic of “people against individual change” it’s entirely logically consistent. As long as I say “rape culture bad”, I can keep supporting it. I just have to wait for magical “systemic change without individual change” to rain down from heaven.

Sure, and then what? If we keep the systems around that created this situation in the first place, we’ll end up back where we started, just with new rich people.

Just to pick out the example of veganism: If all rich people are dead, but the masses still want cheap meat every single day, they WILL definitely reinvent factory farming, with all it’s horrible environmental and ethical consequences.

Sure, on board, but we the people would still need to then build a new world with different systems valuing different things. Most of those things are on that list.

Without the individual changing, we’d just end up swapping rich people.

We don’t need animals to consume plants we can’t, because plant food is soooo goddamn more efficient on every metric. We can drastically reduce land, water and energy usage AND still feed way more people with plant foods. We simply do not need to eat animals.

Any form of “sustainable” animal farming I’ve read up on end up being still less resource efficient than plant foods, AND obviously massively reduced output. So we’re truly talking about vegan vs. an ounce of meat a week. That’s not a difference worth defending, considering the other obvious ethical issues.

Finally, why do you feel that it’s important to argue for “99%” veganism? Do you genuinely believe people don’t understand that less is better, but none is best? Do you apply the same argument to other ethical issues, like feminism? Being 99% feminist is a big improvement, but constantly arguing for it in favor of feminism (aka 100%) would obviously look ridiculous. Finally, don’t you realize the humongous difference between “we should abuse animals for our pleasure less” vs. “we shouldn’t do that”? A whole class of racism disappears if we get rid of the association between “animal” and “lesser moral consideration”.

Just in general: More sane defaults, less RTFM. Sure, you can configure everything, but MUST you? A lot of opensource developers seem to believe that configurability is a get-out-of-jail-free card for having to provide a good user experience out of the box.

While it wasn’t 100% free from hate, Heroes of the Storm had significantly less of it. Similarly, GW2 has a far friendlier community than WoW, because game design does matter.

Wasn’t that Blizzard/Riot?

The videos are literally the entire point of TikTok. It makes sense that the MAIN feature would autoplay. It’s like complaining the pages in an ebook reader are “autodisplay”, instead of every single page requiring an additional input to display the text.

Am I a poor little victom instead of an oppressor because I didn’t personally create patriarchy, white supremacy, ableism, heteronormativity? If I keep supporting those systems, at least when I’m an adult, I am an oppressor and fully responsible.

Well, thats only a relevant distinction if they meaningfully differentiate between Hamas and Palestinian. Considering they’ve talked about using nukes, that they think sacrificing an entire hospital full of innocents to maybe kill a few Hamas, and that we DAMN WELL KNOW how racism means generalizing anyone of a group to be the worst kind of that group, and the fact that the totally un-Hamas west bank is getting ethnically cleansed too, it’s incredibly naive to think they’ll leave any reasonable amount of palestinians alive.

Direct action to make WHAT happen? Any sane direct action concerning animal rights or climate change would NECESSARILY reduce the amount of meat available and/or increase the price. In the end, there is no alternative to eating far less meat. And you’re delusional if you believe the very privileged western consumer base would accept those consequences.

That is exactly why consumers must realize their consumption habits are unsustainable, and unethical.

The oil industry is, of course, doing all that polluting for the sheer fun of it. Our collective consumption habits, esp. in the PRIVILEGED western countries, have absolutely nothing to do with it.

There is no sustainable way to eat the amount of meat we do, no matter how much or how little capitalism gets involved. Even assuming the absolute best (aka unrealistic) stats for grass-fed cows, we’d still have to reduce our meat consumption to 1/7 of where it currently is. Do you think that is doable just by destroying some companies? Do you think people would just accept that???