r1veRRR

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.

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.

NEIN, nicht wer sie am meisten gefährdet, sondern wenn sie als rücksichtslos empfinden. Eines davon könnte man nämlich mit Daten erforschen, und rausfinden, dass wie immer das Auto das allergrösste Problem ist.

Und es ist doch absolut gesponnen so zu tun als ob der FAKT, dass Räder wesentlich weniger Menschen umbringen nur so ein unwichtiger Nebenfakt ist. Persönlich habe ich lieber 5 blaue Flecke vom Fahrrad als ein gebrochenes Genick vom Auto.

Das ist aber auch einfach die falsche Frage, bzw. eine ganz offensichtliche Suggestivfrage.

Stell dir vor du hast einen Bruder und eine Schwester. Deine Eltern lieben den Bruder über alles. Er kriegt die besten Geschenke und ein eigenes Haus, während du dir mit deiner Schwester Geschenke UND Zimmer teilen musst. Natürlich "nervt" dich deine Schwester am meisten, es ist aber ganz offensichtlich nicht deine Schwester das Problem.

Deine Eltern sind hier die Arschlöcher, und wenn dann auch noch Elternfans (ADAC) solche blöden Umfragen veröffentlichen, sieht Mord nicht mehr so falsch aus /s.

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.

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???

You can also copy paste by manually copying text by hand, would call that a valid alternative to Ctrl-C/V?