Funderpants

Another argument against zero tolerance policies.

I mean yea, non consenting chemical alteration of someone’s mental state is a messed up thing, accidental or not. For someone not expecting it, or not used to it, you will likely think you’re sick. That could be distressing. It could be dangerous if that person were, say, headed off to work (nurse, doctor, crane operator, taxi driver, office worker on commute), or had been avoiding cannabis due to family history of psychosis, or has a damaged immune system and now fears they’ve caught something, we also feed pizza to kids.

Most probably nothing grim will come of this, and the jokes are fine I think, but we all should understand that this is serious.

Pretty much only pirate when something isn’t on QoBuz.

Obligitory munecat video:

https://youtu.be/KcxZFmKrxR8?si=C8zDyIHqYK13QdtX

Most men idiots, this man say.

Let’s not give him that much credit, a woman is acceptable but he’d prefer a child who is damaged, with parental consent of course.

Lol, I love that it has access corridors and utilities.

There used to be a plex share subreddit that would turn up if you just googled “plex share”. I thought just knowing the services existed would be enough for the guy to search it and turns those up.

But now that I check it seems that reddit shut those subs down about 5 months ago, so I have no idea where people get access to those services now outside direct referrals.

Get on a plexshare/emby share /appbox with a good ebook selection. Save your time.

deleted by creator

So then we don’t worry about people’s ability to engage in their communities through shared experiences and exposure to arts and culture, we just leave people out? Exclude them if they’re poor. I don’t think I care for that to be honest.

I don’t disagree, but isn’t there something to be said for denying people access to the popular culture based on their ability to pay for it?

Some for sure.

Hah, those were the days. On your topic though, yea it sucks the way celebrities are treated. It’s part of why they command such compensation (I think) they don’t get to live normal lives even if they wanted to. Becoming famous demands security to a degree most people aren’t familiar with at all.

When I was a kid we had a phone book, it doxxed everyone with a land line.

Looks like a nice choke point for a predator to hang about.

The paper I linked doesn’t look into all possible aspects because it’s a peer reviewed scientific work, which unlike blog posts tend to have narrow scopes and aren’t written to debunk every aspect of random peoples thoughts on the topic.

The long and short of this is that people need to be much, much more discerning in which information to trust and which to disregard. The author of your article had a Ph.D. , they could seek to publish their research in serious journals, but they’d need to actually do the hard work of finding reliable, evidence based , peer reviewed sources to do that. Instead we get a blog post the links out to other blog posts that link to yet more blogs, occasional draft papers, and decidedly non scientific works.

If I were to trust this author writing in this medium, why not trust anti-science fossil fuel interests who use the same mediums and communication strategies?

Are you familiar with the concept “the medium is the message”?
For me, it’s a big no thanks, especially on important issues like the adoption of BEVs.

I want to point out that the author of the article you are citing is not an environmental scientist or a climate change expert, but an economist with an interest in the field. The article is not a peer reviewed piece of work, it is more or less equivalent to a blog piece with citations. She is not citing peer reviewed research as far as I can tell, but instead a series of linked ‘studies’ (including drafts and organizational white papers) of questionable scientific value.

After reviewing, I would not be inclined to put much if any stock in her analysis.

Here is a peer reviewed article for nature, that finds BEVs are actually much , much lower in CO2 production even during pre use than ICE vehicles.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27247-y#Fig3

I heard a man once say, no shit, no kidding, that he bought his wife the biggest vehicle they could afford because she was a bad driver.

People are arguing with you because they don’t want to take responsibility for themselves or pay the true cost of their consumption. As long as they see someone worse, they don’t have to do anything. The top 1% make 16% of the emissions, sure. But the top 10% are responsible for 52%. That’s 34% belonging to the 1.1-10% . Much of that is due to transportation (in dumb Suv and trucks), inefficient home heating, aviation, and dirty power generation.

We simply don’t solve this problem by focusing on the top1% alone . Which, like you said, is why carbon taxes should be effective. Especially how Canada did it, with the tax being redistributed to the bottom 90% or so. Unfortunately, bringing in an effective system of carbon taxation just gets you voted out for a science denier.

I swear, if I was the fossil fuel industry this exact kind of class anxiety is what I would exploit to stop progress. Get people paying attention to Taylor Swifts jet so they’ll refuse the systematic changes needed avoid this actual crisis.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity