You just have a chain of unprovable assumptions there.

Kid’s use slang -> they must have picked it up on the internet -> many people are illiterate -> the parents of these specific kids are not raising them right

Excuse me the correct slang here would be to hit someone with that “hawk tuah”

The point being that tweets like the one in question are designed to do the opposite. They are designed to pull attention towards the knives and never to look at the leech.

I agree they are different things, I just wanted to object to this being an abstract problem. It’s a very practical one with very practical solutions. They do take time to implement though because it takes organised action.

Also, separate comment because it’s a separate thing. The analogy is actually perfect. We should be worrying about both things, the knife and the leech. The knife needs more immediate attention because the leech is actually pretty good at keeping it’s wound clean and not kill the host immediately.

The problem I have with the sentiment of the tweet of the bank is the very likely intended focus on just the one side of this issue. Part of why this is a long-winded social issue is because many people don’t take the time to analyse the situation more broadly. Because they have to deal with all the knives in their arms, and get reminded of yet more knives, that the leech can’t ever become the focus of the attention.

The leech is the company you are working for. Companies are getting away with paying you so little because you are removing every little expense that is still left in your life. Fighting for better pay is very much practical.

You know what I never had a picture of a silly goose in my head. But now I do. Thanks!

Well I hope she’s afraid of them now.

The thing is that the people you tell to stop buying their coffee to-go aren’t just bleeding. They are also being sucked dry.

The knife alone isn’t the best metaphor, but with an additional leech it’s closer to reality. And the doctor isn’t removing the leech he’s just removing the knife so you can still produce blood for the leech to suck out of you.

Also the doctor is paid by the leech to tell you how you can produce more blood but you shouldn’t expect to actually have more of it in your system. You see how hard the leech is working on extracting that stuff from you right? That’s basically a 24/7 job.

I’m gonna start following and bothering you!

Edit: huh boost for lemmy doesn’t seem to have a “follow this user” button. So you might be save for now.

You have written tests for your code and now feel safe because your code is tested. But test quality is really hard to measure. The idea seems to be to introduce “vulnerabilities” (whatever that means…) and see if your tests catch them. If they do that’s supposed to show that the tests are good and vice versa.

Cocknitive balls therapy?

No that’s not the same. In one case there is only the theoretical possibility of help whereas in the other case there is a realizable possibility for help. This is a big difference.

On average it gets hotter by 2.5 degrees or less now.

Yes on average over a multiple decade period. This says nothing about how weather is going to change and it’s likely to change a lot. Extreme weathers are going to be way more likely anywhere you are.

I mean even if you aren’t old now you’ll be old eventually. And then the heat’s gon’ get you

But if a private company does it, it belongs ti the private company.

Unless you don’t believe in private ownership?

“If I invented the means of saving lives that doesn’t make it my responsibility to actually do so. Especially if there are profits on the line”. Wow.

Germany has a beautiful sentence in its constitution:

Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.

Property implies responsibility. Its use shall also benefit the wellbeing of the general public.

The thought being that while private property is a core staple of our society this is only the case because the concept of private property is seen as beneficial overall. If private property starts hurting the general public then the implied responsibilities coming with the property are not being fulfilled and the concept loses its value to society as a whole.

I really don’t get what you’re trying to say here. That’s obviously great. I am all for doing this stuff, how could you even think I wouldn’t? I’m saying both kinds of activism provide value.

(Aside from the fact that nothing really got damaged…)

Part of your anger seems to stem from me saying that this whole thing isn’t moving forward fast enough and somehow you think that’s a critique of your personal work. I assure you that wasn’t my goal. But you have to admit that we are, globally, not moving fast enough.

The connection to the fight for racial equality is interesting but I’m not sure how well this applies. How do you suppose you can do anything equivalently “not accepting the rules we want to protest” in the context of climate change? Because before there was a big movement there were just a few people breaking the unfair rules. Which where likely talked similarly about as you are talking about these activists right now.

I’m only speculating that you made that situation up because deep down you understand the need to disassociate yourself from these protests, and it’s increasingly clear to me that you see their value in some kind of shell game strategy, where no one knows who’s pulling the strings. But again, you made that up, not me.

I am being very clear about the fact that two forms of activism can and should be done under different names. And that that is because some forms of activism that I deem valuable would have detrimental effects on the other form of activism if done under the same name. You seem to have a hard time getting that but that’s not because I’m being unclear about this.

Because if you’re not embarassed or ashamed of the pipeline disturbance/damage, then you shouldn’t have a problem openly associating yourself with it. The fact that you’re trying to hard to suggest it’s prudent to distance oneself from a disruption/protest tells me that deep down you understand these things are perceived negatively and are therefore more likely to cause friction and disagreement than sympathy for a cause.

You are still arguing from the perspective that activism needs to please people or else it’s “embarrassing” or “shameful”. I do agree that there is activism that displeases people, I think that is still valuable and nothing to be ashamed of.

But I can acknowledge that there are people that do not see that as something that should be supported. Different forms of activism have different target groups and different wanted effects. It’s just a rational thing to address different target groups and produce different effects under different names.

Ah, so now it’s enough to acknowledge that public resources exist and people can find it if they want? Because seconds ago you were cheering for people to paint rocks in a public place to keep people from talking about anything else. Seems you’re not quite sure what you believe or how you think it should be accomplished. So what is it? Should it be shoved into people’s faces so they can’t ignore it? Or should they be left to find their own resources?

I want the issue front and center in the public discussion. You and I are both aware that people aren’t 100% of the time participating in the public discussion but spend time doing their own thing. Which is partially influenced by what is happening in the public discussion. If climate change is a topic, even if just tangential, that still helps influence people to think about it in the times they spend outside of the public discussion.

I am an ally. That’s what you don’t understand and refuse to entertain as a possibility. I’m an environmental advocate both personally and professionally, and I’ve been working on climate change and environmental issues for over a decade. And even I’m telling you that painting a rock is stupid and counterproductive.

Again I want to thank you for your work, we need people like you. But I don’t think that’s all we need. It has become apparent that just silently working on this at the grassroots level hasn’t shown the necessary progress. So people have decided to express their opinion in more loud and disturbing manners.

The only people who give a shit and empathize with it are people who were already on your team.

Again, this protest isn’t about sympathy. I don’t think anyone is having the illusion that a majority would be happy about this kind of protest. But I think “no one gives a shit” is pretty evidently a lie. People very demonstrably give a shit about Stonehenge being orange for a little while.

Oh definitely. I’m just saying both sides have their indiscriminant supporters and that one side is way overrepresented in my experience