enkers

It should be the media’s responsibility to thoroughly fact check both parties. If that means they have to pre-submit their primary answers and read them off a teleprompter, then so be it.

You’re right, it wasn’t a win, but it should have been.

I didn’t even realize where we were until I read your comment.

I don’t know… I see what you’re saying, but does the president not have the power to take a principled stance on the matter? Maybe I’m being too naïve about what’s realistically possible, but ultimately intended policy decisions have to start at the mouth of the nation’s leader.

He needs to firmly acknowledge and denounce the ongoing genocide in Palestine.

In 2009, CNN’s current CEO and chairman was called the 65th most powerful person in the world by Forbes.

I wonder if he’d have any financial incentive one way or the other?

What’s weird is part of me just wishes they’d just settle it in a golf match. 1 month practice, PGA rules. I don’t even like golf.

Yeah, I don’t disagree. Those who make their decisions by disregarding policy are probably not going to be doing the right things for the right reasons anyways.

If they tip the balance and that means a dictatorship, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop it short of global intervention.

I fucking despise Biden for his policy in Palestine. If there was any reasonable chance that they could switch candidates now and still have a shot, I’d totally agree with you.

I think he’s way too old to be president, but I’m sorry to say you’re stuck with a shit decision, and one that’s been engineered to help work against our best interests.

I fully get where you’re coming from, but I’m not trying to gaslight you.

CNN can’t help themselves.

I wonder if that has anything to do with CNN’s chairman and CEO, Mark Thompson, ranked by Forbes as the 65th most powerful person in the world. 🤔

Would someone like that benefit from tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy?

On the one hand, he fumbled his words a few times pretty poorly. On the other hand, he didn’t spend an hour blatantly lying.

I was watching CNN’s coverage. I thought Biden did alright, asides from a few notable blunders that he recovered from. CNN’s coverage made it sound like he needed to have his adult diapers changed mid question.

It’s crazy how they’re completely ignoring any substance of the debate and solely focusing on appearances. It’s almost like that’d favour a populist candidate or something.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say you’re not going to address your labour shortage by making things worse for labourers.

I agree, and understand change takes time. But to be clear, I’m saying advocating for half measures is relatively ineffective, not that half measures themselves have no effect.

Really? That’s how things play out in reality for sure, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be calling for anything less than a complete abolition of animal exploitation and cruelty. But let’s try it with some social movement that’s often discussed on Lemmy to be sure. Do you think this is a good take:

“You shouldn’t call for an end to the genocide in Gaza, that’s unrealistic. Just stick to ‘Israel should try and kill fewer Palestinians.’ Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.”

The problem of advocating for half measures is that you don’t properly communicate that the behavior in question is unacceptable. It sends a mixed message: “It’s bad and you shouldn’t do it, but it’s still OK to do a little.”

If you can’t understand the difference between structure and content, there’s no point in discussing further.

I don’t mean to equate anything here, but do you think that would have been an effective strategy for social change in other movements?

Like: “What if we just did a little slavery? It’ll be much easier to convince slave owners to give up slavery if they got used to having just a few slaves.”

Do you think that would have been an effective strategy instead of calling for complete abolition?

Once again, I’m not trying to draw a comparison here, you could substitute any past social movement, but the logical structure should hold regardless.

For viewers in the developed west, “there’s plenty of stuff that we can do as individuals,” said Cowperthwaite: eat less meat, reduce food waste, buy less.

Disappointing the directors don’t fully reject consumption of animals, but not surprising since we can’t even covince people to wear a mask when they’re sick.

Haha, yeah, that’s why I said it’s my diplomatic answer, as it doesn’t utterly reject a capitalist framework.

Here’s my mildly diplomatic answer that’d probably get tossed:

Piracy has become a plague on our society, but there’s a more sinister cause to it. The average labourer can hardly afford to pay the same fee to access culture that the wealthy person can, and this has caused a significant and justified uptick in piracy.

This situation can be averted by increasing minimum wages and supporting universal basic income. If everyone knew they could at least make ends meet, they’d have some left over to pay for the culture that mattered to them.

Yes! Or if you keep going down south, you can go through Hiroshima to Fukuoka, then you can take the ferry over to Busan. There are sooooo many cool historic sites all over the place.

I’d punch a human trying to come up to me and draw my blood with a dirty needle as well.

And this may alarm you, but rocks are not, in fact, alive, or sentient in any manner (despite what pet rock enthusiasts want you to believe).

We should be eating cricket flour. […] And if we got over the “ick” factor, our carb-filled food would be a lot healthier.

The length people will go to, to not eat a goddamned legume.