Might also want to make an image of the device with dd if=/dev/DEVICE-NAME conv=sync,noerror bs=128K > sd_card.img first. It’s often a good practice to make a raw backup before doing anything that changes the device.

Didn’t WaPo recently get bought out? Or was that another paper I’m thinking of?

Edit: Nope, just reorganized, it seems.

I always get “I barely eat any meat.”

My dude, if you need to make a confession, see a priest, or a shrink.

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.”

Where’d you pull voter fraud from? The idea is he’s rationalizing making the situation worse to his audience, but voted under his actual name. When your satire is fully indistinguishable without having to be told, it’s shit satire.

If you can’t understand the difference between structure and content, there’s no point in discussing further.

The man’s real name was Tony Barbieri playing his supporter character Jake Byrd.

It’s was all good, as he was just pretending to be a fascist. Just a joke bro.

Later during the exit polls he revealed: “Nah bruh, I didn’t vote for Trump, it was just my character, Jake Byrd, who checked his name on the ballot.”

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.

Called it.

Different city, but same exact play.

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.

Haha, yeah, that’s why I said it’s my diplomatic answer, as it doesn’t utterly reject a capitalist framework.

Here’s my mildly diplomatic answer that’d probably get tossed:

Piracy has become a plague on our society, but there’s a more sinister cause to it. The average labourer can hardly afford to pay the same fee to access culture that the wealthy person can, and this has caused a significant and justified uptick in piracy.

This situation can be averted by increasing minimum wages and supporting universal basic income. If everyone knew they could at least make ends meet, they’d have some left over to pay for the culture that mattered to them.

Pushing a solution that requires dependence on animal agriculture is just someone trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

Also, was there supposed to be a linked article?

Why does just a picture and a headline have so many upvotes? Is this community asleep at the wheel??

Never mind, it’s fixed now, and the linked article clearly views the “solution” as a negative.

I’d have to ask, what do you mean when you say the “cost […] of animal welfare”?

I agree the chart is unrealistic, but perhaps for subtly different reasons.

Surely there are some who would be happy to put a pricetag on the suffering of others, but on principle, I think such thinking should be avoided by vegans, regardless of if other people are comfortable doing so.

What’s the cost of an animal’s life, human or otherwise?

I recognize you’re trying to add in externalities that haven’t been included, but determining a cost of life links it to some sort of utility, which I don’t think it should be. Sentient lives should never be treated as a means.

Why are you looking through 7 month old posts for stuff to get mad about? Get a life bruh.

“Climate change isn’t re-blub blub blub!” >:(

It’s fine. I haven’t died yet, so I fail to see sufficient evidence that I eventually will.

Unless you jailbreak your AI, they’re generally designed to deescalate any potentially romantic situations, so I’d imagine it’d result in a very platonic friends situation where both parties chatter on about nothing.