Suddenly remembered Mitch Hedberg saying on stage, after some of his newer material didn't land as well, "My old shit's better than my new shit~"
Maybe you've just peaked, Ruth, lol.
damnedfurry
joined 2 years ago
I don't think "Hate has consequences" is a sentence someone trying to create clickbait to rile up racists would add to the end of this. I really don't get the impression they were deliberately trying to trivialize or minimize the crimes.
Given that the OOP obviously isn't trying to paint them in a sympathetic light or anything (last sentence makes that crystal clear), why on Earth did they leave out the armed threats, the by-far-most-damning aspect of what those two did?
Good job by the community note.
I’m confused, didn’t you answer your own question?
No, there is a difference in motivation between doing whatever you want because you believe it's hopeless re 'consuming ethically', and doing whatever you want because you've never given a single thought to the matter of 'ethical consumption' at all.
My contention is simply that the vast majority of people who 'do whatever' are in the latter category, that's all.
people who interpret “no ethical consumption under capitalism” as a license to do whatever they want, because it’s all unethical.
Have you actually encountered someone who did this? Everyone I've ever known of who was in the 'do whatever they want' mindset, certainly wasn't because of how they interpreted that 'slogan', it was just because they don't give a shit to begin with—they almost certainly had never even heard it before.
It isn't necessary.
Pinata candy has never been equally distributed among all of the children, that I've ever seen. Sure, parents will often intervene to make sure everyone gets some, but the one who succeeds in breaking it always gets the most.
And that's my point.
So, an economy where the most violent and best-armed are the most wealthy? lol
Yeah the logic always stuns me.
It shouldn't. It's very common on both sides of the aisle. Never heard "vote blue no matter who"? That term was coined and used by large swaths of non-Republicans who agreed to vote for someone they don't agree with about everything. The fact is that it's extremely rare for any voter to be 100% aligned with the views of the person they vote for.
Actually, if you think about it, isn't it more selfish to change who you vote for based on how you personally are affected by their policies?
🤓 Being trans has to do with gender identity, not sex. The whole foundation of transgenderism as a concept is that sex and gender identity are independent elements of a person. So as a corollary (I think, haven't used that word in a while lol), no non-sapient creature can ever be trans, because you need consciousness to have a gender identity in the first place.