dream_weasel

I believe I read people donate much less if money is involved. Part of the motivation is the altruism of the donation.

Nope! I think it’s stupid and entitled and I’d rather distance myself from it and from you. So happy trails!

The last reply I will have here is that by messing with unrelated stuff, you ARE NOT guaranteed to solve the problem or even improve it. This Stonehenge business is totally extraneous. It has nothing to do with anything. If it were permanent, it’s destruction for its own sake. What is more, it’s an implicit green light for more and worse variations of this sort of vandalism or destruction going forward.

If we all make it through, YOU remember you thought it was worth it for the sake of a sound bite and 2 more days in the news for awareness instead of even trying to address the actual problem: airlines, shipping companies, cruise services, coal plants, etc etc etc.

Fucking up history for news hits is stupid, selfish, and ultimately not even particularly effective.

And I don’t want to devalue the cause because we are on the same side of it, but those bits of destruction are still legitimately incidental and not central to the cause.

To put this another way, let’s suppose that we stop climate change in as sound a way as we responded to CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer. Two years later, in support of women’s rights, St. Peters Basilica is destroyed before lent. In support of trans rights, angel falls Venezuela is irreparably dammed on the cliffs before earth day. To bring awareness to police brutality the following year, the main chambers of the Great pyramid is collapsed.

It is all just stuff. But if your unrelated cause is justified in doing actual damage (which I know didn’t really happen yet), why not the next cause? Sure, climate change is an existential threat so maybe there is leeway, but it won’t be the last one. I see that you find it important to make sure we protect where we are going, but I also think it’s important to protect where we have been. It’s not something to be taken lightly or for the sake of “awareness” to destroy our own history.

On the one hand, the roaches may be all that’s left to enjoy our history; on the other hand, if the people and nature are all that’s left and our history is gone, I find that only marginally better than having not existed at all.

You break eggs because you need eggs. There are casualties of war because civilians and infrastructure are near the opposing force. There’s a word for doing that stuff when it’s not necessary: war crimes.

Find me a single revolution that was won or significantly enabled by defacing a heritage site or a priceless work of art as a core tactic.

You’ve created a false dichotomy. There is no need to trivialize shared treasures or heritage in pursuit of any cause in order to save anything or anyone. You’ve decided in some Machiavellian twist that whatever cause you think is truly just is more important than anything other people might value.

It is absolutely important to protect our future, ourselves, and the life we share the planet with, but not by throwing tantrums with unrelated collateral damage. Fight for the climate by fighting for the climate, not by desecrating churches/monuments/art/nature in some weird plight to accidentally piss off the right people and get more TV time.

I picked living things intentionally because there are people who will put more value on heritage and “stuff” than those lives. For example, if I had to choose between the very last rhino and the Great pyramid, I wouldn’t pick the rhino, stonehenge or all of the orangutans is a different discussion. Even any one person weighed against some objects (or other species) is not a cut and dry discussion. It’s totally shitty to think you get to pick what’s more or less important for everyone.

The first time an activist jumps through a plane engine will get a lot more press and is better targeted, and I don’t mean that in a casual / flippant / dismissive way. A spree of vandalism to aircraft engines or supply lines would also do a fine job at a lower cost. People won’t stop traveling because one monument gets defaced temporarily or permanently.

Same as going to see whales or a rhinoceros. Why not spray paint an elephant? Cut down the biggest redwood tree! I mean there are PEOPLE who are starving!

Relics of humanity AND nature AND all the stuff in nature belong to everybody, not just rich assholes. Wrecking these things to draw attention to other topics is peak entitlement.

What the island halfway down the shaft that’s way off the mainland?

“retirfed”: can we not proofread our articles in 2024? The number of first sentence typos these days is ridiculous. It’s especially bad when the article discusses something with some gravitas.

So what I’ll leave with here is to clarify about public opinion:

You said I should ask high risk workers and minorities what they think about cops. I’m saying you can ask a lot of people what they think about anything and you’re inclined to get a broad range of answers that are more or less extreme.

And also about people:

2016 and onward have made it pretty clear there is a plurality of perspectives that may all be toxic to a greater or lesser extent. This isn’t just an artifact of the state: people disagree and sometimes in severe ways regardless of community size. It’s not bad faith to say that if families can ostracize individuals and neighbor can turn against neighbor that adding a council and consensus doesn’t make that go away. 60% vs 40% can still have nasty outcomes in conflict.

I suppose we will have to use our sets of anecdotal evidence and agree to disagree.

I can’t argue that police reform is unnecessary because it is. Despite that face I don’t think you can say that police aren’t also making DUI arrests, responding to neighborhood disturbances, providing safety and first response for incidents on the road, and other non-state enforcing sorts of issues. Public perspective is important, but I think the ACAB crowd would also be inclined to tell you that anarchists are fundamentally dangerous, animal rights protesters are disruptive and misguided, and a bunch of other stuff that is “valid opinion” but is hardly accurate or well considered.

I would contend that ANY policing or militia unit will eventually come to be an enforcer of private “property relations” to a greater or lesser extent for any society that permits the accumulation of wealth or value, but that’s not the fault of the rule enforcing groups. Someone has to keep the peace. (Maybe here’s your whole political point idk).

The last thing I’ll say is

Not if the militia is delegated by the community. The community wont order its’ militia by consensus to beat up part of the community.

This is bogus. Little towns in middle America do exactly this. Progressivism vs conservativism here near the birthplace of the KKK is not a quiet and harmonious affair as signs, graffiti, and even open displays of aggression show. People are nasty and people are good, but there are both types for sure.

I don’t think any of your principles in this thread are wrong per se, but I’m not seeing how they scale beyond a small town.

While that part is much televised, I can’t say that I’ve ever seen an officer do any of that. I HAVE seen police perform a core function of keeping the peace between individuals on more then one occasion.

Sure, any instance of that is a problem, but besides stopping strikes these all seem like things your neighborhood “us vs them” group might do. Or, in the case of eviction, just the regular members of the community. Admittedly, in the eviction case though that’s only for delinquency in “rent to own” probably.

Point being, by and large community policing is a standard function of society and I think it’s the standard function of police EXCEPT perhaps in large metros where police are enforcers outside their own neighborhoods.

So the problem with cops is not that they might be local folks handling domestic disputes, it’s that they keep you from squatting inside a building that is “for lease” owned by the company two towns over? Is that the capital interests part?

Bro, no.

You’ve got some minimal protein, mostly carbs and fat. You’re hurting for protein the most, but fiber is way short, and carbs are way high.

If you’re a 20 something you can look amazing on a diet of vodka and cigarettes, but at 30 or so a PB sando is not gonna cut it. You’ll be needing a protein, a leafy green, and a healthy fat. The carbs will basically always take care of themselves.

With raindrop.io free tier. Folders and tags. Only a few bookmarks are permanently in the browser

Bro it’s super easy, just RTFM!

(I use arch BTW)

Bro I can do you one better than that and it even works without internet after the first time if you work from home!

Open a file and copy the capitals (Ass for A, Bumbulum for B, etc.) from Wikipedia and boom! You add some html around it, go to godaddy or your favorite registrar and claim a domain (I like the expensive ones), manage nameserver and dynamic DNS with cloud flare so can access your home router without getting a static IP from your ISP, then use nginx to set up a reverse proxy (don’t forget to forward unique ports on your router in the NAT rules section!), spool a virtual machine and use your router to create a static lease, stick that file on that machine, and then make yourself a browser bookmark to the URL you purchased that hits your router port forwards to reverse proxy and lands you in that VM on a shared drive! The best part is you can often do this for less than $1000 per month depending on the URL you pick.

Oh, be sure to set up some 2FA though if you don’t want to get hacked.

That’s a copy, padre.

Not super conclusive here. Lean not dangerous? Eh, it doesn’t actually matter that much, I like steak and I’m not eating it every day.