*has totally been looked at by a dermatologist
*has totally been looked at by a dermatologist
Thats something entirely different though. Using votes to show disagreement/agreement makes sense as a tool of democratic communication. This goes for comments that contain statements.
OP describes a “jail” type of usage, where there is nothing to disagree but people downvote amyways (to feel superior maybe), wich sucks cause it reads like hate
I was gonna add “these days” but didn’t
I get the epic of marking climate change as a general human issue by doing stonehenge. Doing, let’s say, the wall street bulls statue or smth in London marking climate change as a capital issue would have been smarter thou
Oh god please no, please don’t escalate this war by adding the killer kind of weapons to it
Looks more like a few hours of cramping body and soul followed by 3 days of emotional hangover
If you seek emancipation of anyone or anything by critique, you should read up what others wrote down, that had or have the same goal.
Otherwise your are individualistically and egoistically sabotaging the very project you want to contribute to.
Saying the most edgy thing to feel yourself “being on the right side” will not do good to anyone except yourself.
I mean so I can’t edit
Okay newsflash +++ It also happend when I click the dots on my own comments, in situations like I forgot to put blank limes betweens my text lines so it doesn’t fuck it all up
Jerboa 0.0.67 Home & community screen As soon as I press sort by icon, I get a pop up “jerboa stopped working” Android 8.0.0 on a galaxy S
I prefer Capitalocene because Antgropocene implies a human subject writing history while in fact we have not reached that self-determination/subjectivation. We’re still object of the organizational structure that emerged from our history. It is the determination of capital to accumulate that steers our decisions over planet manegement
I understand and totally support that in general. I’m gonna try to explain my point of view.
In this case we don’t exactly look at policy-making. Between stating that a majority supports governmental action to ban one use plastics and actual policy is a process.
This process will “forge” the outcome. In it, several conflicting interests will meet/clash and according to the power relations between them, they will be able to enforce their respective will.
Since the power relations are, let’s say, fucked up, we are constantly seeing how profit of few overrule need of many and overall rational solutions.
Thats why the criterion “clearness” seems out of place for me at this point. Certanly, before it comes to the actual policy-making, things like the washabillity of surgical equipment will be processed. You will certanly not end up with a dirty scalpel in your body.
That’s why the scepticism of your initial comment seemed odd to me.
Don’t know if this should be seen as a given standard, or if we (“average lemmy users”) should disclaim it more often, but I don’t mean to be offensive (even though this format of short message discourse provoces a certain sass). I mean to have meaningful conversation about each others POV’s. That’s somewhat the point of lemmy, imo.
The magic about collective action is that the everyday-normal-coorperation of humans comes up with solutions for everyone. The pointer to individual decision-making in lack of collective action thus doesn’t work as a measure of how serious people are.
Also seen in episodes like
“Oh, you are wearing shoes made under unfair conditions?!”
And
“Oh there is fossil fuel in your energy consumption?”
Or
“Oh if you like democracy so much, why do you exist in a not-so-democratic-country?”
Regarding how rushed international policy-making for the environment and against profitability is not at all a problem has never been and won’t be anytime soone, that “scepticism” seems to be the product of “looking for superiority” here, imho
It is not. If it was consensual it might be. If it’s real it’s not.
Surpressing your empathy in face of dire news is your right. We all have to in order to psychologically survive these times.
I think you shouldn’t act out that surpression as a funny joke in public. This adds to the brutalization of the public, wich we can’t really afford in these times, if we want them to become more human, more bearable
Apply that rationalist view on politics to any other significant historical progress against exploitation and you will understand how “abide to the rules of protest” is not as rational as you think. Some examples 8hours working day Voting rights Voting rights for women End of racial laws Your right to organize, demonstrate at all
Rulebreaking of social movements fighting against the immense irrationalities of oppression (like “lets burn the planet cause the mystical market monster demands it”) is what gave you your rights…
Paywall at the real article… Why would they?
The fight for hegemony is always a cultural one. Cultural workers positioning themselves in political conflicts, IS struggle for ethical-moral leadership. Here society fights out what interpretation of the social world is leading, and thus on the long run, which political alliance will be able to lead society.