Yeah, that's a fair point, honestly.
AWistfulNihilist
joined 1 year ago
I feel you, it's for sure gray.
I get what you're saying, but my point is it's not really accepted. It's actually an incredibly controversial process that has recently been updated in the US to include not targeting civilians specifically.
Totally respect it's not your idea, I'm just pointing out that I think it's much more complicated when you involve civilian collateral damage, which is actually terrorism in a mask with an overcoat.
People are pretty universal in their condemnation of American attacks that kill civilians, that's why we see the names of those people less, Trump made that change. Biden rolled back those changes finally, but you're not gonna believe some of the new rules, stuff like stop fucking drone striking civilians you sociopaths: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/us/biden-drone-strikes.html
So yeah, America is both complicit in and has been (maybe still is) a sponsor of terror in many situations. And if one of those people affected by America in that way were to somehow get a bunch of cell phone bombs on GI's hips while they were out with their families, to those people it might be justified while I would still call it terrorism.
You know, I bet they have a problem with both! Shooting a rocket at a market is comparable to putting explosives on a possible combatant and detonating it while they are in a market. Let alone 3,000x that latter scenario.
Like I don't care for terroristic acts on civilians no matter where they come from. I'm unironically ok with them mass targeting the rocket sites, though!
There's been a retail explosion with the thca loophole through the 2018 farm bill. It's really only picked up the last couple of years with both price plummeting and access skyrocketing this year.
Technical legality has meant many of these sellers are using regular billing systems (Card payments, not cash only) are shipping via usps, and using square space to build retail sites.
They'll know this is as least partially part of the cause is they numbers go up once congress closes the farm bill loophole.
I think you're right, but you're just doing it by classifying popular YouTubers as not celebrities.
I would argue that fame from social media alone (YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, etc) is still fame and enough to make a person a celebrity. It's the same picture.
Just like a person can be made bitter and angry by the clouds over head as they shake their fist at them and yell.
It's a journal site, here's the link to the actual study in nature. The language is tougher.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-62511-3
I think i see where you're coming from, to me it feels like traveling a long path from the obvious economics of subsidy and advertising, especially the ubiquity of beef, and making that about the patriarchy. Feels removed from the problem of economic incentive, but more than just access seems to drive it, this paper has multiple relevant drivers though and it does seem to be at least partially based on gender.
Yeah, i think that research might be missing some context...
Meat consumption by males goes up when you have a developed nation, it's almost purely economic, stupid to try to make this part of the culture war considering how small these communities are and their median ages.
"Economic factors explain the influence of human development since meat production costs are higher than plant-origin food production. Nations with more resources provide more options for individuals to buy and eat beef. The findings build on comparable studies with psychological traits and help rule out reference group effects as a possible reason."
The dude who self immolated over the bitcoin conspiracy really took the wind out of the sails of the modern self immolation movement. The willingness to do this says more about the mental state of the immolated than it does about the issue.
I was being facetious, I was at best neutral before horse gate.
view more: next ›
Naw fam, you tilted. Frfr.