As the economy grows and progress creates exponentially more wealth, it’s only natural that people demand ever higher standards of living. This is good, this is how it should be.

At the same time, generational theory is bullshit. People in each age bracket are very different, and in each of them you can find what you would call more sensitive or more tough people. And it is good, too! Some people are better at promoting change, some people are better at withstanding the status quo. Both are necessary if we want to have constant growth on a strong foundation. Oh, and every generation has stupid freaks. A lot of them, in fact.

LGBTQ+ youth defending Palestine is not about promoting LGBTQ+ rights. It’s about fighting for a more fundamental right - right for people to live. No one in their sane mind expects Palestinian Arabs to go under rainbow flags, but it doesn’t matter for as long as life for everyone in the region is endangered. The people you call “weak” are protesting in defence of basic human rights - something “strong” people fought hard for - that are undermined in the world of today. They’d rather see a region that is unfriendly to LGBTQ+ than one that is mass grave.

And you’re right - famous people shouldn’t be our role models! They just often happen to be so as they are in the spotlight. But we should promote other voices - scientists, engineers, economists, we should promote meaningful art, etc. etc. Parents are not always a perfect role model, as they bring with them a load of stereotypes, cognitive distortions, and are commonly conservative in the wide sense of the word, which hinders the development of new ways of thinking. But they too are undoubtedly important.

Which is actually said in the original article

Thanks!

Decided not to stir it, probably

UN is often about grand messages and general directions. It’s not always about forcing direct action - which might be a shame, but UN ain’t almighty.

He does directly state the latter.

Here’s an archived version of the article, courtesy to [email protected]:

https://archive.is/MObDZ

On duty

This is such a clickbait, and it backfired.

The actual point conveyed in the article is that world hunger is beneficial for the rich as it allows to operate sweatshops and employ people under tyrannical conditions over low pay, which is not far from modern slavery. Which is super bad for everyone else, hence world hunger must be stopped and rich should get the taste of their own medicine.

But people did react to the headline, and possibly rightfully so.

So, what’s the middle ground in your opinion?

The entire article is utter apologetic trash, doing its absolute best to show how unpopular this decision is (despite being hugely popular) and focusing on “Hamas terrorism concerns” without any consideration at all given to Palestinians.

Part of any international sanctions is to leave something for the perpetrator to lose.

Otherwise, they can do literally everything without any further consequences whatsoever - it won’t get worse for them.

Also, as rightfully mentioned, part of UN’s goal is restoring peace between nations, which is harder to do when they are not members. That’s the problem with Palestine, and it will get worse if Israel leaves too.

Linus did have emotion control issues and was not always completely rational, but he’s gone a long way towards being incredibly responsible to his child that powers the world.

Also, he long understands that Linux ain’t a hobby project, which some programmers still get to think.

Guess they meant “Spain and Portugal themselves”

Essentially every country settled primarily by Europeans or their descendants, except somehow Latin America, Russia and Belarus, and, debatable, a few other European countries :D And potentially including Israel

The core issue is that it actually is impossible to maintain full democracy under capitalism. Even under perfect direct democracy with no lobbies and full representation those with the means to promote their voice louder will do so.

And if you have big money (which some will, because the more money you already have, the easier it becomes to hoard even more), you can fund projects that will have to promote you in return, skewing the voting process.

In reality though, political lobbying, corruption, etc. are omnipresent, and extremely hard to combat, because it’s in the logic of capitalism to accumulate wealth at all costs, legal or otherwise.

Now, I’m not saying socialist societies are totally devoid of corruption and self-interest, but they at least have mechanisms in place to curb it.

Capitalism is not aimed at increasing people’s wellbeing, it’s aimed at pursuing profit, and people’s wellbeing is fundamentally secondary. If putting people in worse conditions increases profits, this will eventually be done. Socialism, on the other hand, declares people’s equality and wellbeing as the core priorities. Resources should be spent in a way that benefits most people.

deleted by creator

It’s easier to make cigarettes than vape juice. Everyone can produce them.

No reason to believe it’s any hard to build a similar monopoly on that, too

Also true

So, it is a drug, but it’s not right to call it one?

There’s no indication they use cameras in there. It’s most likely just a sensor for vape smoke, similar to your common fire alarm.

And if it makes bathrooms a place where everyone can breathe without inhaling nicotine, I’m all for it. This is not a serious privacy concern.