And you think lending validity to Israel’s claims that its actions are purely to defend itself from a bigoted terrorist threat is going to help anything?
There’s an enormous gulf between asking nicely and spreading imagery that implies you want to literally murderer all Israelis. Have you considered that the most effective action may exist somewhere between those two positions? Also I’m very mad at you right now for making me sound like a centrist. Blech.
Yeah every one of these garbage posts come across as a false flag operation aimed at proving that people (especially leftists) who oppose Zionism are violent bigots.
OP, you are literally playing right into the Zionists’ hands with this crap.
I think it’s specifically meant to debunk the idea that meat is the only affordable source of protein-dense food, when in reality there are vegan protein-dense foods that are even more affordable.
That doesn’t conflict with the fact that a well balanced diet is important; it’s just addressing one sticking point that tends to come up in these conversations.
“what could I have done as Winston Churchill or (I think it was) Truman.”
These people were influential but did not have unilateral power. In their position I would have tried to establish refuge for Jewish people and grant them protective status. Then because of how racist and dumb society was, I would have lost my political position and my influence.
Everything you’re saying really just supports the fact that the nations of the time were handling the situation in a wildly immoral way, and the creation of Israel as an ethnostate was part and parcel of that immorality, and remains highly consequential to this date.
There’s no point asking me as an individual how I would personally have solved the crisis if I could travel back in time, because one person can’t unilaterally force a nation to do anything without being a dictator, and people don’t become dictators without doing horrible things.
What matters is recognizing that the Israel of today came to exist out of two factors:
Now we’re stuck dealing with the consequences of our idiot racist ancestors. Let’s just try our best to not be overtly idiotic or racist ourselves (racist, for example, by turning a blind eye to the genocide happening to Palestinians, as if they’re not even human beings, or idiotic by thinking that there’s any justification for Israel’s insanely disproportionate use of force).
Just to be clear, I’m not accusing you specifically of being racist or idiotic, I’m just describing my general position on things.
Give them sanctuary with protected status in your own country rather than driving other people out of some other country.
I like to imagine the profile pic changed immediately after the transition was complete, and at the time of the “completely cis” post it was something manly, like… I don’t know, hotwheels?
Yeah that’s my big takeaway here: If the people who are rolling out this technology cannot make these assurances then the technology has no right to exist.
“Instantly” on a geological scale 🙃
I can’t be bothered to read any of that unhinged raving in detail but this line jumped out to me and the irony is just delectable:
You have a serious ego issue where any time someone challenges you, you have a full on fucking meltdown.
Clearly I’m the one having the meltdown here 😂
TIL caring about issues that cause unimaginable degrees of unnecessary suffering and also threaten to end human civilization as we know it is trolling.
One person posting a lot is not astroturfing. Astroturfing is about faking the appearance that many different people support the same cause. If it’s the same account doing all the posting then they’re not trying to give the appearance of being many different people.
At worst you could call it spamming. But personally I hope they keep up the spamming because seeing all troglodyte meat industry shills make asses out of themselves is giving me a new lease on life.
Shhhh we can’t let them know that George Soros is secretly a radical leftist vegan.
You aren’t weighing in on it while blatantly implying that the group in question is “idiotic”, okay buddy 🥴
You’re also asserting that my definition was wrong without saying anything about how it was wrong or what would be correct.
What are you even contributing to the conversation? Why did you waste the electricity to transmit any of the utterly worthless bytes that you did? And why am I wasting my time responding?
The last question has an easy answer: I have nothing better to do while I poop. But the rest of the questions are truly a mystery.
Just because you personally disagree with the goal of a grassroots movement does not mean it is a fake grassroots movement.
A grassroots movement is very simply a collection of people, usually belonging to a community with a shared interest, who work together to publicly advocate for a particular cause. This is contrast to a powerful or moneyed interest that lobbies for a cause that usually only benefits a small group. When a powerful or moneyed interest is paying large groups of people (or alternatively bot farms) to manufacture the appearance that a grassroots movement is supporting their cause, THAT is astroturfing. The agreeability of the cause has nothing to do with how the strategy gets labeled.
You have such a tenuous grasp on the meanings of such basic words that you might want to consider hesitating before referring to other people as idiotic.
What an absolutely bizarre whataboutism, so vapid and self-evidently disingenuous that I can’t believe I’m about to waste my time picking it apart, but here we go:
First of all, rescuing children from traumatically abusive environments is not the same as what the meat industry does to calves. Separation from parents is inherently traumatic itself, but that needs to be weighed against the degree of harm that the abusive parent might do, on a case-by-case basis.
Secondly, there are certainly cases of the government separating children from their parents that should be protested. Like when Texas defines transgender-affirming households to be committing child abuse and uses that as a reason to forcibly separate the child. Or when immigration control separates migrant children from their parents.
This might come as a shock to you, but it’s possible to care about and advocate for more than one issue at a time. I don’t know if your emotional capacity might be limited to just caring about one thing, but most people don’t suffer from that limitation.
Your idea of nuance would have us all sitting on our hands while unsustainable industries make the world we live in uninhabitable and put an end to humanity as we know it.
I think a long time ago a vicious cycle began in the advertising space where predatory ads had more incentive to pay for ad space, so sensible people start to perceive ads in general as predatory. Now no sensible advertiser that’s trying to promote a legitimate product for legitimate reasons will do so by buying ad space, thus reinforcing the increasingly accurate perception that all ads are predatory.