He he
threeduck
joined 2 years ago
Ah yes, tone policing, the least snowflakey debate tactic.
IF YOU GUYS ARENT NICE TO ME IM GOING TO CONTINUE THE MASS SLAUGHTER OF SENTIENT LIFE AND DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET 😤
But that lifestyle contributes 15-20% of the entire planets GHG emissions. That lifestyle is selfishly ruining my planet.
I'll steelman her POV because it seems people are (rightly) confused.
Asexuals are requesting a day of recognition for what she sees as a negative-identity. Keep in mind, conservatives are often meritocratic.
It's like if there were a day for "coffee refrainers", for everyone who doesn't like drinking coffee. I'm sure if someone dunked on that day and the coffee refrainers, it'd all be in good spirits.
But if someone dunked on asexuality, I'm sure it'd cause a lot of upset and defensive argument, which implies more "merit" to asexuality.
While progressives can go "who cares, just leave em be", conservatives see all "non-deserved" attention as an affront to meritocracy, that needs to be squashed.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the slave race of house elves continue being slaves because "they love being slaves".
I was giving $20 a month to Effective Altruism, for years, before someone told me it's a messed up organisation. I stopped, and since then haven't given money to anyone. Except $3 a month to Wikipedia, but that's small fries.
I did a chunk of research looking for strong climate focused charities, but if they didn't state veganism anywhere on them, I passed and come up empty handed.
Man I get it, it's important to do this kind of research so we understand the impacts of our actions.
But boy oh boy is this bad optics for environmentalists. I can just hear Murdoch's propaganda arm going "the Greenies want you to kill your dogs for climate change".
Proving our place in the cosmos already HAS extraordinary evidence. Our continued existence (and witness to that) IS the evidence. No one bar solipsists doubt that humans exist.
I took your advice and read the article, IT WAS A GOOD ARTICLE. Thank you!
I think if you're expecting traditional horror, it's more likely just going to frustrate for sure.
You either have the fear the director is trying to evoke, or you don't.
If you're interested in the treatment of laboratory animals, Peter Singer's Animal Liberation goes into great detail.
Of note, the LD⁵⁰ test tasks how much of something needs to be given to animals before 50% of them die (n usually = 20 to 200). Sometimes that involves force feeding them via tubes, because the quantity required to kill is so vast.
This is used for pharmaceuticals, pesticides, industrial chemicals, household cleaners, food additives.
Typically death by this route is not pleasant.