Honestly you don’t actually see the tankies calling anyone CIA over here because “western indoctrination” is a good enough explanation on why someone said something for them. If you’re a tankie you run into people every day who think the US is the greatest country on earth and unless you’re schizophrenic you probably don’t think they’re CIA

On the other hand most people will never run into a tankie in real life so when they encounter one online they are much more likely to assume they’re outside agitators and not sincere.

The reverse is probably true in China under “tankie” hegemony. The anti-ccp liberals would call the pro-ccp brainwashed sheep and the pro-ccp would call the anti-ccp US assets.

He’s just mad the church of shrimp Jesus is leaving him in the dust.

It puts downward pressure on wages. That pressure is way overblown by Republicans and there are plenty of solutions to address it that don’t involve sending icestapo in to break up families though.

Pretending that this pressure doesn’t exist just makes people like us who want to stop this seem out of touch to the normal person who has concerns about immigration, which the election showed is a very large chunk of Americans and westerners in general.

These concerns should be addressed by showing the relative magnitude of the problem compared to benefits gained from immigration along with solutions for stagnating wages, not outright dismissal.

put the ozempic in the water

Be careful what you say, that could seriously harm junk food profits, you don’t want to get the McDonald mafia after you.

By what criteria are you classifying coconut oil as a good fat? The way I understand it fats going from worst to best go something like trans fat, saturated fat, unsaturated fat, omega 3. Coconut oil is nearly 100% saturated fat, moreso than butter which is around 80%. So if coconut oil is good then so is butter.

I will say it’s somewhat marginal on the health benefits of unsaturated vs saturated though.

They stopped apartheid south Africa from conquering Angola, so they aren’t completely innocent in the eyes of racists.

deleted by creator

Can slacktivism work

IMO no, You’re way less likely to reach anyone outside your bubble online unless you have a large broad following , and even then you’re mostly broadcasting to an echo chamber. The algorithms are working against you, they don’t want to show you nuanced takes from the other side that’ll make you think and stop scrolling for a second, if they do show you takes from the other side they’re going to show you extremist rage bait that is easily dismissed by a funny caption.

That’s why I think phone banking , which can be done through software too even if you don’t have a phone, is better. You’re calling random people, and more of them are less into politics than the people on social media who are seeing political content, so they are less entrenched and more open. I guess you could also get to these people through social media but you’d have to fight against the algorithm to get out of the echo chambers and into the more moderate general spaces.

In general I think you need to focus on and put energy into things you can change for the good. If you are unable to change others minds then you can still focus and put energy into changing yourself for the better. You can focus on changing your mind for the better, learn an instrument, a new skill hobby etc. that you can see yourself getting better at. Or you can focus on changing your body for the better through exercise and diet.

For example if you want to fight climate change and probably improve your health with more fiber and can control your diet then switching to a vegetarian diet can be a way to change your body for the better. You can also learn to cook vegetarian food which will build a new skill and improve your mind, a skill you can clearly see / taste you getting better at.

Tough spot, but some suggestions I can think off the top of my head:

for organizing: come election time you can phone bank from home. Find a progressive cause or candidate you believe in and they’ll usually have a system set up and script for you to call or text and a list of phone numbers. This can also be an entry point into the campaign to volunteer to do other things and you can explain your situation

For exercise:

• you can buy some weights online and use those along with body weight exercise to work out. I mostly do cardio so I’m not too familiar but I’m sure there are plenty of guides online

• walk a dog. If you don’t have a dog you can probably find a neighbor near you who would be happy to have there dog walked. Idk how restrictive your living situation is but I’d hope that walking the neighbor’s dog would get you permission.

• try vr if you can afford it, some of the games will get you moving and sweating and are pretty fun, there are also guided workouts as well.

Whatever you do just start a regiment that you can do and keep to it. You probably won’t see progress for a while but if you do keep on it and make it a habit you should start to notice your mood improve.

Organizing for the things you can change, which isn’t much in this “democracy”, exercise for the things you can’t. Doomerism and anxiety tend to go away if you spend 30 minutes a day running instead of doom scrolling.

Idk, I wouldn’t consider entry level software jobs bullshit but those jobs are disappearing quickly with AI. Like the stuff I was doing on my first job could easily be done with AI now with similar review and oversight from a senior dev, and I wouldn’t say that job was a bullshit job

I agree a state monopoly on insurance would probably be beneficial but that doesn’t mean we have to get rid of different rates. Riskier drivers need to pay more because they’re more likely to take money out of the system. This doesn’t mean they have to go into a higher risk pool, it could be just one big pool but balancing money in and money out fairly will require different rates. It’s unfair to charge a person who barely drives their 10 year old car the same price as a 16 year old with a Porsche, one of those people is way more likely to have an accident, and a costly one at that, and take out more money from the pool and thus get disproportionate “benefit” for the same price.

Some states do provide/sell insurance as an “insurer of last resort” for those who can’t get insurance on the private market due to being horrible uninsurable drivers.

Probably would be better if those people just weren’t driving but this is america where driving is an unalienable right.

Sorry misunderstood, didn’t know you were talking about trash bags

deleted by creator

To all the people happy about the possible ban, multiple studies have shown that speed cameras reduce accidents and fatalities full stop, that should be enough to advocate for them.

A camera shouldn’t be enforcing the law

Would you rather cops be doing speeding traffic stops then? Because as we’ve seen that leads to a lot of deaths for POC. Also having cops do speeding enforcement opens the door for a lot of selective enforcement which is unfair for certain groups. Whether you like it or not speed limits need to be enforced for the safety of everyone on the road and cameras can do just as good a job as cops without the possibility of someone getting shot.

This is just some revenue generating scheme for third parties

Ideally the money would be going back into the city’s budget, and this is mandated in many jurisdictions. Even if all the money is going to a third party though it’s still a positive, because again these cameras are reducing accidents and saving lives. If someone is making money off saving lives that’s not really a problem if it’s only taking money from drivers who choose drive recklessly.

This is a problem with the roads, they need to be narrower, more trees etc. to subconsciously slow people down

Ideally yes, roads should be narrower and better designed, but rebuilding a road costs money, which comes from taxes. Most of those people paying taxes aren’t speeding so they’re being forced to pay for a road redesign for people who are too lazy to check their speedometer, it’s even more unfair for non drivers who are forced to pay for their safety. Cameras are cost neutral and puts the burden of reckless driving on reckless drivers.

This is just a scheme to give data to the cops and advance the surveillance state

Cops don’t need a scheme to put up cameras wherever they want. Even if this ban passes it’s likely they’ll leave the cameras up but turn off the speeding and just have them collect license plate numbers of everyone who passes by. At least with speed enforcement people get some actual safety out of the surveillance state.

Come out to California, there’s plenty of job openings to pick veggies and flowers in the sun, doesn’t pay much but you don’t even need citizenship.

Seriously please come, if these ICE raids keep going and the MAGAts don’t take these jobs they ripped families apart to get then we won’t have salads anymore and I fear the state will fall apart after that.

Yeah, hunting with an ak would be better then hunting with an ar-15 in 5.56

No your wrong Just google it if you don’t believe me

Since you don’t seem to want to google “x hunting caliber recommendation” , or you did and saw that nobody thinks 5.56 is the way to go and came back here mad that you couldn’t find anyone to back you up, here’s some guides:

Here’s a boar hunting guide recommending:

You might get off a few follow-ups with an AR-15 before the pigs disappear, but without head shots, you’re unlikely to recover many animals — especially if you’re using standard calibers like the .223 or .300 BLK. AR-10 platforms in .308 work better (I’ve used them shooting pigs at night with thermal vision), but those rifles are heavy, expensive, and cumbersome in a stand. They’re great shooting rigs, but not my favorite hunting platform.

Here’s a guide on the top 10 hunting cartridges for deer and look, 5.556/.223 didn’t make the list

And here’s a guide for elk hunting cartridges and again 5.56 is nowhere to be seen

Seriously just find a single person who’s hunted before and recommends using 5.56 and I’ll admit I’m wrong. You will get some people who have done it but it’s not making anyone’s top 10 list. Maybe thats because they can’t comprehend your physics lesson but I’d say they can understand what bullet makes the animal stop moving.

You don’t know what you’re talking about

Neither do you, neither of us have hunted before, so we should both listen to the people who have. I’ve been looking into boar hunting recently and all the guides I’ve read recommend large caliber rounds to lower the chance of wounding the animal, which is why I made the first comment. So I’m going to take the words of people who have done this before over your physics explanations and when I do hunt it will be with a .300 or above.

What, in your mind, are optimal weapons for hunting?

A rifle with a caliber .300 or greater for hunting anything bigger than a raccoon such as boar, deer or elk.

How do they differ from an AR 15

The size of the bullet, again assuming it’s chambered in 5.56, I guess you can get ars in a larger caliber but they’re less common.

There are many hunting scenarios where a 5.56 is optimal

Ok name one then. They are not optimal for hunting boar or deer, just google it if you don’t believe me. You said they aren’t the best for small game either as they’re overpowered, same with birds, so what should you be hunting with an AR ?

Seriously just google this, I’m not gonna argue the math and ballistics with you because I honestly don’t know them that well and am going to take the many testimonials and guides online of actual hunters. You can even ask your friends who hunt if they would recommend using 5.56.

Also legal doesn’t mean ethical, you can hunt elk with a handgun here in California legally, that doesn’t mean it’s ethical. There are no restrictions on caliber size, just that it has to be center-fire and soft point. Idk if California is strict or lenient on hunting but I assume it’s pretty strict relative to the rest of the country.

EDIT: apparently California is lenient and it looks like it is also illegal in some states to hunt deer with .223 including Illinois which requires .300 and above for hunting deer, but that must be because the law makers don’t understand ballistics and cavitation.

Not saying you can’t use it for hunting, just that it’s not optimal and you don’t need one to hunt. Therefore it’s not a valid reason to keep them legal, as you can and should be hunting with something else.

Also your reasoning about how hunters do or should reduce the animal’s suffering doesn’t make that much sense.

With most kinds of game, an ideal shot will go through both lungs and the heart.

Yeah and you’re less likely to hit those vitals with a smaller faster round. Yes if you’re a very good shot then you can hit them but with smaller rounds you’re more likely to miss them, wound the animal and then have to track it down, further then if you hit vitals, to get another shot at them. The more you’re able to reduce the chance that you wound an animal without killing it the more ethical hunting is, part of that is using larger caliber rounds.

For that reason no hunting guide is going to recommend using 5.56 on anything bigger then a raccon. They’re fine for smaller game but don’t offer much advantage over a .22.