Or the uniform might be saying something about the inherit relationship between cops and queers…

Also the definition of ‘gay’ and ‘gayest’ is poorly defined. This assumes that gay is some sort of scalar, where in reality it’s a projection from a multidimensional ‘queerspace’ that can change the appearance of the spectrum wildly depending on the methodology the one projecting uses.

Except that’s not even how most bus systems work because most of them are majority funded by taxes with fares originally meant to serve as a stopgap but then slowly converted into a profit engine (usually after privitization). Fares are a way to gatekeep a service which your taxes already pay for, which I would argue, is by itself a form of theft.

As an example check out the latest MTA report only 26% of funding comes from fares, and that ones a bit in the higher end from what I’ve seen (NYC public transit, picked as the example a it’s recently been in the news for issues with fare evasion)

All that aside, it’s also worth noting that fare increases are extremely unpopular and it’s not that easy to increase them without potential serious backlash (ie the mass protests in Chile a few years back that were in part set off by the fare hikes.)

I literally linked one… Try reading first before responding.

1. It’s worth pointing out that the IPCC no longer uses the term “geoengineering” or “climate engineering” for the exact reason that we may be talking past each other here. They are problematicly vague and can describe things with very different characteristics. Are you talking about CDR, CCS, CCU, SRM, other vague “offset the impacts of climate change” (IE ocean liming/fertilization, glacier stabilization, etc.), or all of the above?

Some approaches to geoengineering may have negative side effects, but others don’t appear to.

Be specific. Which ones?

2. You have misread my previous comment.

Climate change would cause famine, ameliorating the effects of climate change would prevent that famine.You have misread

This statement is correct, but you are bringing it up against the point being made about how taking a “treating the symptoms” of climate change might improve things a bit in the short term, but leads to worse long term outcomes.

3. Nowhere did I say it’s not worth studying.

You’ve got some sort of a priori conviction that “no, geoengineering must make the situation worse somehow” and therefore it’s not worth studying. If it’s not studied how can you possibly know?

I have stated that the current status of said studies do not have sufficient evidence to merit the claims you are making. If you think otherwise please provide some evidence/papers/links etc. otherwise we’re in a Russell’s teapot situation here.

Unless your definition of “studying” is the argument that because the situation is bad enough it’s worth trying, at scale, whatever approach in the hope it improves things somewhat… Because that’s the argument that many use in order to sell dangerous and unethical grifts which seem promising and ‘harmless’. (I’m linking that article specifically because it’s “neutral journalism” at it’s worst and I’m curious at what you take away from it…)

Frankly, this argument always bothered me.

Because you don’t understand the argument…

Using your metaphor the thing you’re proposing to “treat the symptoms” has side effects which worsen the disease thus causing more real damage and worsening symptoms.

The only reason you would willingly pursue that course of treatment is if a treatment for the initial disease was ongoing (in this metaphor it’s not, ghg emissions continue to increase dramatically) or if a patient was on palliative/EoLC.

You aren’t saving “millions of people from starving to death”, you’re gambling that it will hold a bit longer before tens-hundreds of millions of people starve to death, and the evidence that these “treat the symptoms” is minimal at best thus leading to both outcomes (millions soon, more later).

Ok Boomer 🙄

If you build a base on/near a bunch of ore nodes and dedicate it entirely to mining your pals will mine it for you and it respawns daily (passive ore generation ftw!!!)

So… Just like probation?

1. Propoganda is just as much about convincing you who/what the enemies are as it is about instilling nationalism.

2. Your repeated use of the word “commie” tells me you’re deeply steeped in a specific kind of American propoganda. Do you want help getting back to reality or are you happy where you’re at?

Ah yes, there’s no propoganda in america.

You might reconsider based on which one has more ability/incentive to affect you

You should think a bit more about that “ladder” concept. In the same way that advocating for manumission doesn’t fix any of the issues with slavery a “path to the rights of the group above” doesn’t fix any of the issues with an apartheid state.

Unless you’re fine with a little genocide, any apartheid state is not a solution.

It’s not, the underlying data is still just as biased. Taking a bunch of white people and saying they are “ethnically ambiguous” is just statistical blackface.

1. That looks like a pretty standard utility tunnel. The video conveniently stops at the “blast door” which isn’t actually weird because electricity is hella dangerous. I would be willing to bet the most dangerous thing found behind that door is a surge arrestor.

2. The hostages being led inside the hospital isn’t great, but it looks to me like they needed medical attention. What would you prefer happen? If I were a hostage and needed medical attention I would much rather live in a world where the hospital cooperates with the “baddies” to provide that medical care and do the “recovery” later, wouldn’t you?

3. Those videos show living hostages. If the goal is to recover the hostages then why is the IDF only recovering bodies?

Based on that evidence you provided I would offer the counter-narrative that it appears that Hamas is trying their best to keep the hostages alive while the IDF prefers them martyred.

It’s not defeatist, it’s pushing back against the wishful thinking that “voting with your dollar” is effective and your responsibility ends there.

That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying the act of “not buying it” (even if it was a complete and total boycott) has no impact on the production due to the system of subsidies, futures, derivatives, etc. that is set up explicitly to make sure production continues. And therefore has no impact on land/water usage, suffering etc.

With the point being that it’s a good first step, but if your expectation is it will change anything without first changing the underlying system you will be very disappointed.

You are making the false assumption that your consumption is causative to the production of animal products which is, unfortunately and non-intuituvely, untrue. The only difference between vegan and non-vegan diets is whether animal products end up on your plate vs. in “cheese mountain” type stockpiles, exports, landfills, etc.

That being said, ‘commie’ is a terrible communicator if that’s what they’re trying to say. Going vegan does help to highlight some of the contradictions of capitalism and you’re on the right track as it should be advocated for. However, the ‘invisible hand of the free market’ does not translate veganism to any reduction in farmed animals, land or water use.

You might get some better perspective by looking outside the “European” sphere.

You seem to have some similar thoughts to the author of the zine here.. An except:

European Anarchism is “1) A history of iconic figures. 2) A set of increasingly radical ideas about social transformation. 3) A practice that has only been uniform in its rejection by those in power.” And that it is also a dynamic politic that invites its very destruction yet maintains composure of core principles: Direct Action, Voluntary Association, and Mutual Aid.

You may also find some of Öcalan’s writings interesting/enlightening.

That's the point…