enkers

In 2009, CNN’s current CEO and chairman 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?

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.

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.

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 to international law that would allow it as consequence of offensive wars. Ofc, the US probably wouldn’t be terribly interested in that.

Some of those that work forces…

Do the right thing (for the shareholders)

Best to just copy the URL and paste it in archive.is, then come back and share that URL.

https://archive.is/Yhie1

Y’know, big tinfoil hat time since conspiracies are really hard to keep, but if I was a climate scientist who wanted people to take climate change more seriously, (as we certainly should!) it wouldn’t be a horrible strategy to try and get everyone on board to underpredict. Exceeding the worst case prediction definitely adds a sense of direness that might not be there if things were just going exactly as they’d predicted.

Of course, I don’t actually think that’s the case, because it’d be nearly impossible to make such a large conspiracy without it leaking, but if there was ever a global conspiracy to try to save humankind, that’d make for a good one.

When your political rivals get poisoned, jailed, and eventually killed, it’s not too surprising that no good opposition candidates exist.

Hamas is the new slaughtering process that certifies it to be safe for Israel.

No? I think it’s fair to assume that the flow of information is unilateral for a reason, and it’s also fair to interpret evidence accordingly. One side is trying to completely control the narrative. That party needs to be treated with more scrutiny, and the party who is unable to properly produce evidence because of the other’s actions needs to be afforded more leeway. Why would it not be so?

Think of it like a court. If one party didn’t respond to any requests for discovery, the other party would be designated as fact in those matters where disclosure wasn’t provided. This is to account for the information asymmetry.

Also, I was being somewhat terse before, I didn’t mean to imply anyone should be beyond all question.

Maybe there’d be more objective reporting if the IDF would stop killing journalists. In lieu of that, I’ve got no choice but to take potentially less objective sources at face value.

It’s a feature, not a bug…

OK, look, we tried refactoring, but everything broke. Just don’t touch it and it’ll be fine.